Chocolate: Sweet. Satisfying. Sensuous. And some may say fattening... but you may not have to worry too much about your weight if the size of this year's Easter egg packaging is anything to go by.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

We rounded up ten Easter eggs from ten different manufacturers. This isn't a scientifically representative sample - these were the worst examples we could find from their ranges.

And we also rounded up John Pain, the Head of Calibration at the National Measurement Office.

So, which Easter eggs had the biggest proportion of packaging? Our expert John weighed them in controlled conditions at the National Measurement Office.

The Easter eggs that we assessed were:

• Lindt Gold Bunny Luxury Egg(260g)
• Smarties Hen House (177.5g)
• Tesco Finest Milk Chocolate Cocoa Pod with cocoa dusted truffles (380g)
• Baileys Easter Egg & Truffles (390g)
• Thorntons Premium Collection (298g)
• Guylian Seashells Egg (245g)
• Maltesers hollow milk chocolate egg with 4 MaltEaster bunnies (314g)
• Cadburys Dairy Milk (535g)
• Sainsburys Belgian Stripy Milk Chocolate Egg with White Chocolate Decoration (220g)
• Green & Blacks ORGANIC Milk Chocolate Collection (380g)

The three with the MOST packaging were as follows:

In third place: Tesco Finest Milk Chocolate Coco Pod. 33% of this is packaging - meaning that of the entire product only two-thirds is chocolate.

In second place is the Smarties Henhouse Egg, with 35%. However, the makers Nestle say that's because they've replaced plastic with cardboard - which although is heavier, is recyclable, so therefore is more environmentally friendly.

And out in front is the Lindt Gold Bunny Luxury Egg, with a whopping 37.9% packaging.

Now, like the others, Lindt say the net weight of the chocolate is clearly displayed on the box. The packaging is there to protect the chocolate inside. And all the manufacturers say they have been reducing the amount of packaging in recent years.

A spokesperson from Guylian said:

As manufacturers of gift confectionery Guylian strives to achieve a sensible compromise between our environmental impact and packaging that makes our proposition attractive to both consumers and retailers.

As a company, we take environmental issues very seriously and have been a major partner of Project Seahorse since 1999, providing vital long term support for the crucial marine conservation work that Project Seahorse carries out throughout the world.

A spokesperson from Cadbury's said:

"Cadbury has steadily reduced the amount of Easter Egg packaging over the last five years so that today our best-selling Medium Eggs will use just half the weight in packaging it did back in 2007. And, for those who don't like packaging at all, we produce our Treasure Egg range which is simply wrapped in foil."

A spokesperson from Nestlé said:

"All Nestlé's egg packaging is completely free from plastic and 100% recyclable - Nestlé is the first company to achieve this. To get there, the plastic is replaced with card which is heavier thus adding additional weight compared to our competitors"

"This is not really a like for like test. The Smarties Hen House delivers much more than just an egg in a box. It has been specially designed so it can be opened up and the card inside has farmyard animals that can be coloured in and cut out to complete the scene. The pack has a large open window on the front so you can clearly see what you get inside."

Liza Madrigal, Green & Blacks Brand Activation Manager:

"In 2009 we greatly reduced our packaging across all of our Easter eggs. The use of stronger FSC accredited card resulted in a reduction in the amount of cardboard needed, together with the removal of plastic vacforms, resulted in a saving of over 70 tonnes of packaging per year. In addition, the increased amount of chocolate in the shell of the eggs resulted in a thicker, more indulgent and luxurious ethical treat for consumers.

"We are passionate about making the best tasting organic chocolate possible, while being committed to being environmentally responsible and therefore are delighted with the results from the BBC Watchdog investigation which show that you our endeavours have paid off."

A spokesperson from Lindt said:

Lindt & Sprüngli is one of the world's leading manufacturers of premium chocolates and the packaging of our products is a very important and sensitive part of the production chain.

On the one hand, the packaging needs to be appealing to the consumer. This is especially valid for seasonal events with a gift-giving character, such as Christmas, Valentine's Day or - like in this particular case - Easter. Lindt & Sprüngli produces top quality chocolate products which need to be presented in an adequate way with a premium appearance so that they stand out on the shelf against other products.

On the other hand, the packaging has the essential function to protect the contents from damage during transportation and handling, from temperature/light exposure, and from odor transfer.

For this purpose, Lindt & Sprüngli uses biodegradable materials such as card board, recyclable plastic, etc. wherever possible. To inform the consumer about the packaging contents, clear information about the weight is given on each packaging. Beyond that, we maintain a transparent communication for example in our online shop under http://www.lindt-shop.co.uk/seasonal-chocolates/easter/gold-bunny-luxury-egg-260g.html where the actual weight can be found right next to the product name.

It goes without saying, that we are each year evaluating the packaging situation of our products anew and constantly working on reducing material usage wherever possible. For example: the packaging of the "Gold Bunny Luxury Egg 260g" has been reduced by 11.3% compared to the previous year with an average packaging reduction of 12% across the whole Easter Egg Range. Furthermore, a large proportion of our Easter sales come from the Gold Bunny range the majority of which are packaged only in Aluminium Foil.

A spokesperson from Lir said:

Many thanks for your constructive comments in relation to the packing contents of the Baileys Easter Egg & Truffles by Lir Chocolates.

As part of our ongoing packaging research we are continually striving to reduce packaging levels in our products and this will include re designs for the Easter 2013 season.

In relation to the Baileys Easter Egg which is selling in UK retailers, we have reduced the amount of plastics used in the packaging by removing the separate plastic tray and lid that holds the chocolates. In its place we gave employed one piece of plastic that holds both the actual East egg and the truffles. We have also removed the acetate window on the packing. This year, in total, we have reduced the packaging used in this product by 23.8%.

However as you are aware we need to ensure that when we ship product, it arrives 'in-store' in the same condition as when it leaves the factor. Therefore, we have carried out extensive transit trials and we are confident that we have reduced the packaging to enable us to achieve this aim.

A spokesperson from Tesco said:

"The packaging is necessary to help protect the chocolate egg and, as this is a premium product, it also reflects the fact that it is intended to be given as a special gift.

"We try hard to keep our packaging to a minimum. Since 2007 we have reduced packaging across our own-brand products by 15 per cent and are committed to reducing this even further."

A spokesperson from Sainsbury's said:

"We've reduced our Easter egg packaging by 57 per cent since 2008, and that's in line with our goal to reduce all our own packaging by half. Also, where possible, we aim to use recycled materials or ensure that the materials we use are recyclable."

The DVLA gets over £3million a year by selling our names and addresses to private companies. These companies then use that information to pursue drivers for parking charges, which can be extortionate. But it's alright, according to the DVLA: they only pass on details to reputable companies, who are approved by the British Parking Association (BPA).

But, last year Watchdog revealed how some of these companies were breaking the BPA's own code of practice, by flouting the rules on signage, photographic evidence and appeals. The DVLA and BPA told us they took our findings seriously, stating: "From what we've seen it's clear that all these cases are right to be passed to the BPA for investigation."

However, the BPA didn't remove any of the companies we featured - they are still free to buy your details from the DVLA. And it gets worse; if a private parking company wants to obtain your name and address they only need two things - your registration number, and access to the DVLA database, which holds all the details of all registered keepers in the land.

Observices Parking Consultancy Limited, or OPC, enjoys such access, because it agrees to abide by the British Parking Association's code of Practice. But last year Trading Standards officers began hearing about problems at an OPC car park in Wolverhampton.
They got a trickle of complaints which became a flood of complaints, as people discovered they were getting tickets long after the time they were allegedly parked. The target time to notify someone of a ticket is 14 days, with an outer target of 28 days - but some people received a ticket 125 days after they parked, by which stage they couldn't remember if they'd parked there or not - let alone for how long.

Trading Standards also found a series of other code breaches, one example being signage. While some notices warned of maximum stays and no returns within two hours, others only warned of the maximum stay. This resulted in drivers were being caught out.
Wolverhampton Trading Standards told us people were being ticketed and when they appealed their appeals were dismissed. They also said some of the appeals ended up with a debt collection agency, which worried people, when there was absolutely no need for that to happen. Wolverhampton Trading Standards carried out a thorough investigation, and found the only way forward was to put the matter before a Magistrates' Court. In court, OPC was later charged with 39 different offences, because it hadn't just broken various sections of the BPA code - it had broken the law. The court said OPC had been "unreasonable, unfair, intransigent, and had deliberately misled motorists". It fined the company, and its director, nearly £30,000.

And yet the BPA did not remove them as a member, or prevent them accessing the driver details database. It took the DVLA two days to get round to it, during which time ten more drivers details we sold to a company that had just been convicted in court for issuing unfair parking tickets.

Although the DVLA did subsequently take action, suspending the company's access to its database for 47 days, OPC continued to make money from motorists during that time.
Marnie Lavender got a ticket in this OPC car park in Kent. She told Watchdog she was angry at OPC for giving her a ticket when she knew they'd been taken to court. She wondered how she managed to get her details when OPC were banned from getting details from the DVLA in March and April.

The answer is that, throughout the whole period of its suspension, OPC continued to operate as normal. It used its cameras to photograph license plates like Marnie's, stockpiling a whopping 1,120 registration numbers during that time. Then, on the very first day the suspension was lifted, OPC sent ALL the numbers it had collected to the DVLA. Which, in return for £2,800, handed over the car owners' details. It makes you wonder what the point of the suspension was...

The DVLA says it lifted the suspension - and gave retrospective access to its database - because the British Parking Association assured it the company had cleaned up its act, and was now fully compliant with the Code.

Except that it isn't; we returned to the same Wolverhampton car park recently and found OPC still displaying a sign failing to inform drivers of the 'no return within two hours' policy.

Wolverhampton Trading Standards has told us if the no return within two hours is still missing on one of the signs, after we've had an investigation, a prosecution and a conviction, and a BPA audit, then that is concerning. They have said it would appear to be a breach of the code, and it was breaches of the code that took them to court in the first place.

Watchdog can reveal figures from the DVLA that show more than 1.4million driver's details were accessed from their database last year. That's up by 500,000 from three years ago.

We've seen how the DVLA has agreed to requests from companies which have breached the industry association's Code - and now they are agreeing to requests from a company that has broken the law. Is there anyone it won't sell your details to?

A spokesperson for OPC said:

We thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have 16 signs on the site, all of which were ordered the same. We will be taking this up with the signage company as it appears 2 of the signs within the retail park do not contain the words No return within 2 hours.
These removed within the hour and new signage replaced as soon as possible.

A spokesperson for BPA said:

At the outset we would like to emphasise that landowners have a right to manage and protect their land which requires effective parking enforcement. The BPA believe that our Approved Operator Scheme provides a robust framework for this to happen whilst safeguarding the rights of motorists, a belief demonstrated by our work to introduce an Independent Appeals Service.

It should be understood that our approach has always been to drive up standards in car parks for the benefit of motorists and to achieve operator compliance with the Code. We believe it is better for operators to recognise the importance of compliance and make improvements so they can continue to operate in accordance with the Code.

1. Why is OPC still a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme despite serious breaches of the BPA Code and the law?

In this case, when we became aware of the charges against OPC, we immediately contacted them to point out that these offences would also constitute a breach of our Code of Practice if they had not been rectified. Our compliance team then carried out an inspection of the services provided by OPC and were satisfied that significant efforts had been made to rectify their practices. OPC access to DVLA data was suspended while this investigation was taking place.

Although it is our policy not to divulge disciplinary measures taken against members of the Approved Operator Scheme, we can assure viewers of Watchdog that it was made very clear to OPC that any further breaches of the Code of Practice would be met with the strongest possible disciplinary action.

That was followed by a three month period of scrutiny during which audits were conducted by both the BPA and DVLA. No further breaches were indentified and it would have been wrong, therefore, to expel an operator that was compliant at that time.

2. Does the BPA believe that the BPA and its Code of Practice are robust enough, given that private parking companies continue to breach the Code?

The BPA's Code of Practice is very robust and has the full engagement of representatives of the motorist including the RAC Foundation and the IAM. It remains the case that that our compliance mechanisms can only go so far. Ultimately we can expel a member which removes an operator's access to the DVLA database, but there are many who operate without access. We have repeatedly asked the government to make it illegal for such companies to trade without any form of regulation but they have, so far, refused to do so.

We have expelled 5 operators and have applied a number of sanction points to other operators.

The AOS is constantly evolving and a number of key changes have taken place or are planned for later this year. These include the employment of a dedicated Compliance Manager, appointed last July, who is specifically tasked with monitoring AOS member compliance and with investigating significant alleged Code breaches. The Code of Practice will be re-written to reflect the changes to the sector following Royal Assent of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. This revised Code will include more stringent and sophisticated signage requirements and motorists will soon have access to an Independent Appeals Service.

3. Why was OPC permitted to submit requests that had been collected during the time of the company's suspension by the DVLA?

To be clear, OPC was suspended from accessing the DVLA database but no authority has the power to suspend a company from operating entirely. Therefore once it had been established that OPC was no longer misusing data obtained from the DVLA, there are no grounds to stop them from using it to collect parking charges incurred retrospectively during their time of suspension.

The purpose of the suspension was to ensure that no data could be misused until the BPA and DVLA could determine that OPC were fully compliant.

4. Will the BPA be taking any further action against OPC as a result information outlined by Watchdog as above?

The BPA relies, to some extent, on motorists and on programmes like Watchdog to bring these matters to our attention. Although we do carry out regular spot checks on all of our members, it is impossible to be aware of every breach of our Code of Practice. Inadequate signage of the nature alleged by Watchdog would constitute a breach.
An inspection of the car park at St John's Retail Park was carried our March of last year our records do not indicate that there was any problem with OPC's signage.
We'd like to thank Watchdog for bringing to our attention a minor breach of our Code of Practice at a car park for St John's Retail Park managed by OPC. Upon hearing of the breach we immediately contacted OPC and they removed the problematic sign within thirty minutes.

We also asked that they overturn any outstanding charges made to motorists who had returned to the car park within two hours in the last twelve months but they have confirmed that there are no outstanding charges for that period of time.

Our compliance team have taken into account the exceptional speed at which this was rectified and the evident lack of any adverse impact on motorists and therefore on this occasion, sanctions points will not be applied.

We would also like to make the following additional point regarding action taken following incidents highlighted by Watchdog last year:

All four incidents highlighted by Watchdog in April 2011 were fully investigated. In some instances there was no breach of the Code and in others, appropriate action was taken including the awarding of Sanction Points for breaches identified. In all four cases the operators in question are no longer in breach of the clauses of the Code alleged by Watchdog last year. This provides a useful example of the Approved Operator Scheme driving up standards for motorists and the private parking industry alike.

 
A spokesperson for the DVLA said:

"We take our responsibility for the information we hold very seriously. Information is only provided under strict controls to parking management companies who are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association who are compliant with its Code of Practice and its standards.

"To safeguard personal data, we immediately stopped providing information to OPC when we became aware of the legal action brought by Trading Standards. Neither the Trading Standards action, nor the DVLA suspension prevented OPC from continuing its operations as a parking management company.

"No DVLA data was provided to OPC during its suspension. When the suspension was lifted following thorough investigation, OPC applied for information to follow up alleged parking contraventions that had occurred during that period. The information was provided after we had checked that all the necessary criteria for the lawful release of the information in these cases had been met."

"If it is brought to our attention that a company does not meet the necessary standards, we will immediately investigate, and if allegations are proven, stop the release of keeper information to them."

1. Given that the DVLA does receive payment for requests processed for registered keeper details, what assurances can the DVLA give to drivers that this has no bearing on decisions taken with regards to private parking companies?

We do not profit from providing keeper details to support private parking management. We take our responsibility for the information we hold very seriously, and provide a strictly controlled service to those who we believe have the legal right to request and receive vehicle keeper information. This includes private parking companies who are compliant members of a relevant Accredited Trade Association. The law allows us to recover the cost of processing these requests and the fee covers the cost of providing the information. This ensures that the cost is borne by the requestor and not passed onto the public.

Information is only provided under strict controls to parking firms who meet the standards set by an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and are compliant with its Code of Practice. The relevant ATA for the parking industry is the British Parking Association (BPA). Strict rules detail when information may be requested and how it can be used. Regular audits are conducted by both DVLA and the BPA to make sure that information is only provided to those who comply with the rules.

2. Does the DVLA believe that the BPA and its Code of Practice are robust enough, given that private parking companies continue to breach the Code?

We believe that the BPA enforces its code of practice in a manner that allows us to be confident that the data we hold is released fairly and lawfully. All BPA members must comply with the code in order to maintain their membership. The BPA investigates complaints received and, where these are upheld, sanctions are applied. Where appropriate the BPA will terminate the membership of companies failing to adhere to the Code. Availability of DVLA information would cease as a matter of course.

3. Why was OPC permitted to submit requests that had been collected during the time of the company's suspension by the DVLA?

If a parking company is suspended pending further investigations, no requests for information from our records will be met until the operator's compliance is proven and we have formally reinstated them. In the case of OPC, we immediately suspended their facility to request information once we became aware of legal action being brought against them by Trading Standards Officers. These matters concerned breaches of consumer protection law.

This action was taken to safeguard personal data whilst investigations were conducted. The investigations found that there had been no irregularities with the use of DVLA information. In this case, we considered carefully the validity of requests for information made by OPC after their re-instatement to pursue alleged parking contraventions which had occurred during the period of suspension. Checks revealed that the criteria for lawful release of keeper information were met in these cases.

4. Will the DVLA be taking any further action against OPC as a result information outlined by Watchdog as above?

Where it is brought to our attention that a company may be operating in breach of the code of practice, we will immediately refer the matter to the BPA to investigate. Work is in hand to act on the further information provided and, if on investigation it is proven that that the necessary standards are not being met, we will take the appropriate action

Painting a room can do more than make your walls look smarter: they can alter your mood, change the atmosphere and even lift your spirits... that's according to the new Dulux adverts. But their new ad campaign has unfortunately coincided with complaints about their Pure Brilliant White Gloss Paint. The paint that, according to some customers, does not do what it says on the tin.

Dulux say they are on hand to help you make those all-important colour decisions and that includes the gloss paint they have available for wood and metal surfaces. If you opt for white, Dulux don't just tell you it is pure white, they promise it's going to be 'Brilliant' white.

But from doors and cabinets to bathroom cupboards, many customers have complained that within a matter of months Dulux's Pure Brilliant White Gloss paints have turned a rather unappealing shade of yellow.

John Chesters says, "It was if we'd chosen a different colour, we were horrified that within three months all the timber that we painted had turned yellow." John faced the prospect of having to redecorate so wrote to Dulux who then gave John vouchers for new paint and paid for decoration.

That was in 2010 but we are still getting complaints...

Colin Beare told us he painted his entire hall which totalled 11 doors, front and back, in Dulux Pure Brilliant White Satinwood, a job he started in February last year. Yet within a matter of weeks of painting Colin noticed that the paint had gone a cream colour. When Colin contacted Dulux, they eventually offered him five hundred pounds in compensation. But he didn't just want money. He wanted answers - and he got them. Dulux told Colin that in 2010 the whole paint industry were forced to make changes to the way they make paint and that the ensuing reformulations have meant that this yellowing process has been much swifter for some customers than they experienced prior to 2010.

So what are these changes that Dulux are referring to? Well, it was the EU that forced companies like Dulux to change their oil paints. For environmental reasons, it ordered paint manufacturers to reduce the amount of Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs in the paint.

Martin Horler, a Consultant in Decoration says, "To get rid of the VOCs or lower the VOCs you have to reduce the solvent, if you reduce the solvent you have to increase something else and so what they will have to do to keep it in liquid form will be to increase the drying oil which unfortunately causes more rapid yellowing of the paint."

Manufacturers are now required to place labels on paint tins stating what the VOC level is within the paint. But how are consumers meant to know how the VOC level will affect the paints performance?

We've learnt that another leading brand, Crown do place a message on one of their tins warning that yellowing could take place but there are no such warnings on Dulux tins, so their customers only become aware of the problem when it's too late.

When Michelle Antcliffe's woodwork yellowed, although she was given £100 in compensation and free paint, she was told by Dulux that there was an alternative paint she could use that wasn't prone to yellowing: a water-based, quick-drying gloss. Again, this was important information only found out when it was too late.

Perhaps if Dulux had made it known earlier, the steady drip, drip, drip of complaints to Watchdog would have dried up long ago.

A spokesperson for Dulux said:

In response to the item being aired by the BBC's Watchdog programme about Dulux Pure Brilliant White gloss and satinwood products discolouring under certain conditions:
We are sorry that we have disappointed a small number of our customers. We'd like to explain.

A piece of EU legislation was brought into effect on 1 January 2010 to reduce the amount of a particular type of solvent, known as 'VOCs', which were allowed to be in paint products.

This was because of the impact which VOCs have on the environment. As a sustainable company, we were fully supportive of the legislative change.

All manufacturers who had paint products with VOC levels higher than a certain level had to change their products to comply.

In changing the formulation, and despite rigorous testing, it became clear that in some conditions, early versions of the 'new' paint formulations were more prone to yellowing after application.

We addressed this issue in 2011 by reformulating our Pure Brilliant White gloss and satinwood paints.

We are confident that the performance and finish of these paints is comparable to the versions which we produced before the legislative changes came into effect.

To reiterate, we're sorry that some of our customers have been disappointed. We take customer satisfaction very seriously and will continue to deal with any issues which customers may have with these paints on a case by case basis.

If customers have any queries in relation to these paints then they should contact our Technical Advice Centre on 0844 409 9837 or via email to the following address: general.duluxukretail@akzonobel.com

A spokesperson for Crown said:

Since the introduction of EU legislation in December 2010 which established new thresholds for VOC levels in paint, Crown Paints has started to phase in wording on its packaging to inform all customers about this legislation and the potential for yellowing in certain circumstances and conditions. This was rolled out across all relevant products throughout 2011 and is already available in many outlets.

Crown Paints has also continued to introduce alternative technologies, including Acrylic and Quick Dry Glosses, which are technically acknowledged for their improved whiteness in service.

1st Call Environmental Services Ltd of Derbyshire, trading as 1st Call Services - not to be confused with companies of a similar name - is a company that Rogue Traders first came across in 2005. Back then, the company was mainly doing drains work. But it seems that in the past seven years, they've had a career switch, as these days they are mostly in the pest control business.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Paula Wheatley from Yorkshire had mice in her loft, so she contacted 1st Call Services who quoted a £29 plus VAT basic treatment charge, with the possibility of it being more if further work was required. Paula explains that their rep arrived and was in her house for half an hour; he looked around both the loft and Paula's bedroom on the first floor and quoted her £432. He proceeded to do the treatment and wrote out the bill. When Paula asked if he would come back to check if the treatment was working, he quoted another £165 plus VAT to do it.

Michael Box had a wasp nest in his roof fascia treated. He told us he was originally quoted £30 plus VAT, but once the 1st Call rep arrived, they said told him he would need to put smoke in both the loft cavity and put smoke in to the powder under the tiles, which would cost £225 plus VAT. All for only 45 minutes work...

Former boss of the British Pest Control Association, Oliver Madge, explains: "It's important with pest control, or I suppose any business, that the pricing is clear from the outset. These customers seem to have experienced anything but. £270 for a wasp nest or £630 for a two treatment mouse job seems astronomical."

We set up a house, and this time it had something extra - a wasps' nest. We filmed during winter, when coming out to inspect a wasp nest isn't unreasonable, but certainly unusual. We called five pest control firms who all said they didn't need to come out. 1st Call Services, on the other hand, said they did. So they sent their man Adrian - he turned up three hours before he was supposed to, which created a bit of a panicked 'buzz' amongst our production team who were not expecting him so early.

We had been quoted £29 plus VAT for a site inspection and basic treatment, and Adrian wanted to see the nest up close, so headed to the loft. Oliver Madge confirmed: that there should be no need to charge any more than the £29: "This really should be a case of confirming that the nest is dead and really not much else." Adrian, however, told our stooge that if she wants an absolute guarantee on the nest being dead, it will be £80 plus VAT. "Increasing the price to £80 seems an extortionate sum for a nest where there's just no need for any control," explains Oliver.

Adrian promised only a 60-70% guarantee on the wasps nest if we paid the £29 fee as he claimed there were "hibernating" young queen wasps. Oliver confirmed that it is true about hibernating queens but as Adrian is checking a nest in early winter, they would already have left the nest: "I can't understand why he wants to treat the nest, it just seems a way of charging more money."

After letting him talk us into the more expensive treatment, we let him get on with it. Expert Oliver Madge checked the nest after Adrian had gone, concluding that 1st Call Services' technician only treated about a third of the nest, which would have been ineffective had there been wasps - which of course there weren't. Furthermore, Adrian used two different types of chemical, neither would have been effective against hibernating wasps as they would have already left the nest. Oliver explained that this was "an expensive waste of time and also an illegal use of pesticides because there were no pests present."

One of the men behind 1st Call Services is David Dolphin; the other is Robert Sheridan. To ascertain if they know what is going on inside their company, we placed a mole within the company. Our Mole called up about possible vacancies. Before he knew it, he was talking to David Dolphin, who explained that they try to "maximise that job without ripping the customer off completely." He continues, "At the end of the day trying to charge as much as you can for every job."

It was time for Rogue to find out more. Our mole arrived at 1st Call Services HQ and he met David Dolphin himself, along with his business partner, Rob. Once again, David proceeded to talk about maximising sales He also told our mole his training would take place on the job by observing other pest controllers to see how it's done. David explained the company is not the cheapest, but is the best. He revealed that there is no set price: "The more you can charge that's viable, the better for you and the better for us."

David even offered up some words of caution: "If you're going to rip somebody off, just imagine Rogue Traders or a programme videoing you." He also added "If there is nothing you can do, just charge them the £29 or £39 inspection charge and move on."

Our Mole was paired up with a 1st Call employee called Mick who showed our mole the ropes. At the first job he quoted a customer £240 plus VAT for rat treatment; Mick tells our Mole that they don't actually need that level of treatment, confessing "You could probably get away with a basic treatment, but at the end of the day you're trying to make a living out of it. It does seem as if you're ripping them off sometimes."

David Dolphin offered up some more advice at company HQ. While customers are told that his staff will charge them £29 plus VAT for a site inspection and basic treatment, David reveals: "£120 would be fantastic. So every time you go on a job, £120."

We went out with one of the firm's top salesmen, Graham. He explained that he "exaggerates" the pest situation in order to charge more than the basic £29. Indeed, he visited a customer who thought she only had one rat, but Graham tried to persuade her otherwise by telling her that she had between 8 and 16 in a colony. While rats can live in any number, it is highly unlikely that there are that many rats under the shed, as the lady had only seen one.

Graham explained that it is £29 per bait station, of which the customer will need between 3-4 stations "to wipe them all out". Oliver Madge explains that if there were that many rats, then three or four bait stations wouldn't kill them all. Despite the pressure selling, the customer declined Graham's offer and opts instead for the £29 basic treatment.
During the day with Graham, he gave us an insight into how he prices charges for different customers, whether they are Asian (where he uses racist slurs), apparently wealthy or elderly. He told one lady her house had fleas without even testing for them; and while checking for bees in a chimney, he threw honeycomb - covered with a dangerous pesticide - into the garden next door.

We contacted the company with our allegations about misleading and overcharging customers, as well as casual racism and a callous attitude to the elderly by certain staff. But we also wanted to talk to the boss in person. We went to 1st Call's offices at 5.30am one morning and managed to confront David Dolphin's business partner, Rob Sheridan. He refuted the allegations that Matt Allwright put to him, and insisted on opening up, so Matt decided to wait for David Dolphin - who duly arrived.

David explained to Matt that his company had issued the BBC with a two page written statement, addressing the issues the programme had raised. He stated that the company:

• was committed to equal opportunities and does not tolerate discrimination of any kind;
• had always complied with any recommendations made by trading standards;
• is always striving for improvement, and in light of the matters raised in the letter from Rogue Traders, would be implementing further safeguards to ensure that all of our customers receive a first class service;
• that certain comments by members of the company may have been taken out of context and some issues distorted;

Matt highlighted that this did not address the fact that the company did not have a pricing structure that people could understand, which David refuted.
The company also says employees are trained to the highest levels, and assess each job individually, on site.

And they say 36.29% of call outs - from the start of the year to the 15th of February - were charged at £29 plus VAT or less.

After an internal investigation they've dismissed Graham and taken appropriate steps with other staff members.

Graham meanwhile has denied exaggerating jobs and says he does his own job to the best of his ability. He says he's not a racist or ageist.... and that everyone is equal in the world.

AXA Sun Life, Sainsbury's and Liverpool Victoria are just some of the many plans offering special insurance policies aimed at the over 50s. As long as you pay a monthly fee, they promise a fixed lump sum payable on your death.

These plans are aimed at covering funeral costs, and more than 2.3 million people have them, but Watchdog has found that that they could prove very costly. Martin Lewis reports.

Policies like these may sound good - no medical checks before you sign up, and a guaranteed pay out even if you die just a year or two later, but you really have to examine the small print as you could pay more than paid out on death.

If you sign up for these type of policies, you may end up paying more in than it ever pays out. That's because with Over 50's plans, the amount it pays out is fixed, so the longer you live, the more you pay in.

James Daley, Money Editor of Which?, explains that people are living longer but unfortunately if you do end up living into your nineties and you have got one of these plans 'they are going to turn out to be incredibly bad value'.

Some plans do take inflation into account and it's important to understand that once you have paid the money in, like an insurance policy, you can't get it back. In most cases regardless of whether you have paid in the value of your lump sum they will continue to take the payments until your 90. Three companies will make you pay even beyond that, including the market leader in Over 50s plans, AXA Sun Life.

AXA Sunlife's over-50s ad campaign - fronted by Sir Michael Parkinson - has been hugely successful with nearly 790,000 people signing up.

84-year-old Mary Vickers took out two AXA Sun Life policies with a combined total planned payout of £2738. When her daughter went through the paperwork she discovered Mary had already paid in £3,727 and that she'll have to keep on contributing £22 a month - until the day she dies. Policy holders like Mary would have ended up with far more had they just put the cash in a savings account.

June Tapping's parents took out their first plan in 1987, but as its value dwindled, they decided to top it up with a second. AXA Sun Life has encouraged them to do the same thing - again and again. They now have 10 plans and have paid in more than £10,500 even though all the lump sums add up to only £6384.

The message from Watchdog is, if you're tempted by one of these plans, do your sums first.

A spokesperson for Sun Life Direct said:

The peace of mind that comes from knowing there is money to help their families pay for funeral costs is important to our customers. An estimated 100,000 people* in the UK find it difficult to pay for a funeral, and plans like the Guaranteed Over 50 Plan are an affordable way for many people to help towards these costs. This is a simple insurance plan, not a savings plan, so the key thing it provides is certainty that a fixed lump sum will be available when it's needed.

In fact the majority of our customers pay in less than is paid out when they die, but we do know our customers understand that they may pay more in than they get out, because in research 9 out of 10** of our customers say we explain this well in our literature. Furthermore, 95%*** of our customers' loved ones we researched tell us they are very satisfied with Sun Life Direct when they have made a claim. Despite high levels of satisfaction, we are not complacent. All companies get complaints from time to time, and when there is a complaint, we take it seriously and work hard to resolve it to the satisfaction of our customers and their loved ones.

With regard to the customers being featured on BBC Watchdog, these are not now Sun Life Direct customers so we cannot respond directly to their comments. However, for balance, here is a representative sample of real statements which customers and their families have made to us:

"When my husband passed away and I needed to make a claim, I found [the company] to be absolutely wonderful. The cheque was with me in a few days and I was very grateful. I also have a Plan that my son can use to pay towards my funeral. However, when my husband died, I took out another Guaranteed Over 50 Plan because I thought if I do that, my family will have less to worry about when I'm gone." Mrs F, February 2012

"You've got to think ahead - and my family are pleased to know I'm getting things in order. You need to take responsibility for yourself. I chose a monthly premium I can easily afford. Now I can enjoy my books, music, films, and of course family, with peace of mind." Miss E, February 2012

"The Plan will probably be used to help pay for my funeral. I've got no savings so it will go some of the way to help towards it. I thought the pack was very straightforward and very clear. It explained everything to me...I feel better that there's something in place now." Mr R, June 2011
*Source: Total Cost of Dying Report 2011 (Sun Life Direct)
**Source: Continuous Research Programme Oct - Dec 2011 (Sun Life Direct)
***Source: Customer Satisfaction Research August 2011 - Jan 2012 (Sun Life Direct)

A spokesperson for ABI said:

Over 50's life insurance policies can provide a useful benefit for those who want the certainty of cover with no questions asked. The very nature of life assurance is to protect loved ones against the risk of your early death - but of course this also means that those who are fortunate to live longer than expected will pay more. Companies who provide these products must now comply with the requirement by the Financial Services Authority that they deal with customers in a way that is clear, fair, and not misleading. Getting the right life cover in place to protect your dependants is an important decision. With some policies you only pay premiums up to a specified age so it is sensible to shop around for the policy that suits you best.

A spokesperson for Friends Life said:

'We have received the details of the customers who have complained to Watchdog about the Over 50s plans they bought from Sun Life Direct. Friends Life now manages these policies following the purchase by Friends of part of AXA's UK life business at the end of 2010. While we cannot comment on individual cases, we take all customer complaints very seriously. We are currently investigating the issues raised and will respond direct to the customers.'

A spokesperson for Sainsbury's Bank said:

"We offer a range of good quality, competitively priced products designed to give our customers choice. The Sainsbury's Over 50s Plan particularly appeals to customers who may feel excluded from other policies because they don't want to have to go through a health assessment, or because they do not have many savings but still want a policy to give them and their families peace of mind. We know that these customers value the simplicity of the product."

"We are always clear with our customers about the policies we sell and are explicit that the Over 50s Plan is a life insurance policy rather than a savings account. It is impossible to predict when someone will die and it is therefore inevitable that some customers will pay more premiums than others. The promotional material for Sainsbury's Over 50s Plans includes a section called "Things you need to know" which draws customers attention to the impact of inflation on the lump sum that will be paid. We believe that the information in this section should help customers to shop around and work out which policy best suits their individual circumstances."

"We never encourage customers to take out more than one policy"

A spokesperson for LV said:

"Over 50s plans satisfy a clear need for those who can't afford to purchase a pre-paid funeral plan, don't want to go through any medical screening, and want peace of mind to know they will leave behind a specific amount of money for funeral expenses or unpaid bills."

A spokesperson for Tesco Bank said:

"Tesco Bank offers a range of life insurance products, including an 'Over 50s' plan. Our plan offers a guaranteed customer acceptance, without asking any medical questions.
The plan offers our customers assurance and peace of mind that their family will be protected from some financial worries when they are gone by leaving them with a cash lump sum. It is a protection product, which means its purpose is not to offer a return on an investment (as an ISA would do), but instead provide a guaranteed payment when the customer dies.

At Tesco Bank, we pride ourselves on transparency and strive to provide our customers with very clear and simple information about all of our products including the conditions that apply to them."

Hotel rooms don't come cheap, especially in the big cities and tourist spots. But if you want to stay connected online, you might find a much bigger bill when you check out, as Watchdog's resident grump, Rick Wakeman has been finding out...

Rick Wakeman has finally embraced the digital world. He loves surfing the web, he finds email fantastic and as for social media sites - they are a great way of communicating with friends... and complete strangers.

If you do want to go online to use one of these facilities, you don't have to be tied to your home or office. There are Wi-Fi hotspots all over the place, and lots of places, such as cafés and restaurants, now offer free access. So for the prices of a latte, you can surf away - for nothing.

However, if some restaurants, fast food places and coffee shops now let you go online for free, why don't more hotels? Some of these hotels are already charging us a fortune to stay there. For example, The Sheraton on Park Lane costs £149 per night for a room and £16 for internet access. The Dorchester's cheapest room is £235, and the cost of going online is £19.50. And as for The Ritz, room prices start at £255, and getting online costs an additional £26 per day.

Of course, most people will never set foot inside such swanky hotels - but that doesn't mean we won't get stung, because many of the less expensive hotels are at it too. That is, charging for a service which, these days, lots of guests regard as a basic essential.

Sinclair Beecham runs a North London hotel where Wi-Fi access is free for all guests. He explained: "Internet access costs us, I don't know, £300 per month. We have 200 rooms, so that's £1.50 per room per month. What? Five pence a day?" But what about installation costs? Sinclair continued: "It costs quite a bit to put internet access through the whole hotel, but it costs quite a lot to put flushing toilets in, too."

So there you have it - five pence per room, per night. No wonder Sinclair can afford to provide it for free. Like other hotels including The Langham, Claridge's and all Best Western hotels. Why don't the rest follow suit? An even bigger mystery is why do some chains charge you one price in some of their hotels but a higher price in others? Take Crowne Plaza; it costs £5 per day if you want Wi-Fi access in their Birmingham branch but if you stay at their St James London branch, it's £10 per day. However, if you are booked into their New Bridge Street hotel, which is just a few minutes' walk away, you'll be stung for £15.45.

It's a similar story with Holiday Inn. Internet access is £7 per day in their Poole hotel, which is a bargain compared to their Cheltenham branch, where the daily charge is £12.

Rick may be a cynic, but he suspected these charges had something to do with the fact that hotels used to make a significant profit from guests who made calls from their bedside phones. Now, thanks to mobile phones, not many of us use them anymore. They've got to make up the lost profits somehow. Of course, Rick is sure every hotel would deny that.

Meanwhile, some hotels are coming up with more imaginative ways to get money from customers. Take the Marriott hotel. They not only charge for internet usage in their rooms - they also slap on additional cost per device. So if you want to connect on your laptop and phone, brace yourself for the bill. Sinclair Beecham added: "Internet access is as essential as a bed or sink in a hotel today. My guests can't function without it. Some hotels take advantage of this, and that's short sighted."

On the lookout for good deals, Rick thought he had found one at Firmdale Hotels. They seem to allow you to use their internet, as they don't insist on you having to pay for a whole day of access. Instead, they let you pay by the minute, at 30 pence a pop. So that means that if you spend just one hour online, it's going to cost £18...

A Sheraton Starwood Hotels & Resorts spokesperson said:

Today, many of our 1,100 hotels do offer free WiFi in rooms and in common spaces. This includes the new Aloft London Excel in East London which offers free internet to guests throughout the property. Other UK & Ireland hotels offering complimentary internet in both public areas and guestrooms include Turnberry, a Luxury Collection Resort, in Scotland and The Lanesborough, a St. Regis Hotel, in London.

In cases where hotels do still charge for in-room WiFi, we are providing creative solutions to offer guests free internet access in public spaces. At The Park Lane Hotel for example, we offer complimentary WiFi in The Palm Court Lounge with the purchase of a menu item. Similarly, the newly opened W London - Leicester Square offers complimentary internet access in the Living Room, W's interpretation of the lobby space.

Furthermore, our most loyal guests, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) Gold and Platinum members, benefit from free internet access in all Starwood hotels and resorts worldwide.

A spokesperson for The Dorchester said:

WiFi charges at luxury hotels such as The Dorchester reflect the higher level of service offered in terms of bandwidth, speed and support; for example e:Butlers who are available 24/7. This summer The Dorchester will also roll out the tiered access already offered at sister hotels 45 Park Lane and Coworth Park, which provides guests the choice between complimentary standard WiFi and a paid option for the higher level that supports applications requiring greater bandwidth.

A spokesperson for Crowne Plaza and Holiday Inn - IHG said:

We provide free wi-fi access to all guests who stay at hotels from our two newest hotel brands, Hotel Indigo and Staybridge Suites.

We are currently reviewing how we can move towards offering free wi-fi across all our hotels. As the vast majority of our hotels are owned by franchisees, this isn't something we can do overnight.

Prices for wi-fi are set by each hotel, based on local market conditions.

A spokesperson for Marriott said:

Marriott International provides wireless and/or cabled high speed internet access at virtually all of our nearly 3,800 hotels worldwide. The terms and any fees associated with this service vary by brand, region and market, and reflect the competitive landscape. The most frequent guests of our 36 million-member Marriott Rewards guest loyalty program, who typically represent the majority of internet users at our hotels, receive this service free of charge at all properties across the globe, including, of course, the UK. Also in the UK, we are upgrading bandwidth at our hotels to facilitate individual guests' access to high speed internet service for multiple devices simultaneously. While we will not disclose specific proprietary information, the costs involved with operating high speed internet access are much higher than those cited in your message to us.

A spokesperson for Firmdale said:

1. Charges start at 30 pence per minute to a maximum charge of £20 for a 24 Hour period. The 24 hour period starts at the guest's check-in time, includes unlimited amount of devices connected to the wireless internet service, unlimited amount of data can be used, and all hotels are connected to the internet by fibre connections on gigabit interconnect speeds. Hotel's wireless and wired internet connections are installed as fully redundant solutions with backup wireless controllers, redundant servers, and failover internet connections should the primary internet fail. Each year we continue to invest in new technology for the Guest Internet solutions.

2. At Firmdale Hotels not all of our guests use the internet service so we have chosen to charge rather than inflate our rates in order to compensate for an ultimate loss in revenue.

LA Fitness is the third largest gym chain in the UK. We investigated LA Fitness and found that, like Fitness First, LA Fitness had also been ignoring guidance from the OFT. Chris Hollins reported for BBC Watchdog.

Six out of ten branches of LA Fitness that we investigated didn't tell us that our contract would be automatically renewed if we failed to cancel.

Half of the branches we visited failed to warn us that we had to give one month's notice before leaving.

Four branches failed to show us the terms and conditions before we signed up and four actually ticked the box stating that we had read the terms and conditions, despite our researchers never seeing them.

LA Fitness staff aren't simply forgetting to tell people things, they've also been breaking their promises and misleading customers; customers like Caroline Quay. Caroline was told by one of the members of staff that if she could bring in proof that she was moving house, he would cancel the contract immediately. When Caroline did then move house, she brought in the proof to the branch, however, the assurance she'd received when signing up proved worthless. The gym told her that she had to live further than twenty miles from an LA Fitness branch in order to cancel the contract. One member of staff told her that she should cancel her direct debit, after doing so, she received threatening letters from a debt collection agency. Caroline had received false information when signing up.

LA Fitness's terms and conditions do not allow you to cancel if you move. However, if a salesperson makes a verbal promise that induces the would-be member to join, then as far as the law is concerned, that is as binding as anything in writing.

It's worth pointing out that since Caroline joined LA Fitness they have introduced a pledge which spells out, in writing, members rights which includes things like the right to cancel if you move away and as a rule of thumb this should be at least ten miles from the nearest branch. However, when we went undercover we were told by one gym that we had to move 20 miles away, another 25 miles away and another 'half-an-hour-distance' away.

Our researchers were also told by some branches that if you are made redundant you can cancel your contract. This seems reassuring, but is it true? Well, according to the new company pledge, LA Fitness 'will work with you' if you lose your job; however, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to cancel your membership and the pledge even states that they might freeze your membership instead.

And what about a cooling off period? Well, the new pledge couldn't be clearer: if you want to leave within ten days of joining, you can with no hassle. So why were we told by some members of staff that there is no cooling off period?

Our commercial and contracts lawyer Mark Weston explains: "The problem is that they are giving information to the consumer that is just wrong or missed out or inaccurate... Let's be clear: if you go in and sign up because you are told something misleading, you can look to get that contract set aside; it is also separately possibly a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations - you shouldn't have to put up with that.'

A spokesperson from LA Fitness said:

LA fitness was extremely disappointed in the findings of the BBC Watchdog researchers when they visited a number of our gyms. Their mixed experiences were not typical of what any potential, new or existing member can expect from LA fitness. We have already begun a retraining programme for our staff to address the issues raised by the programme. LA fitness has more than 200,000 members and over the past two years has invested £30m not only in gym refurbishment and new equipment, but also in training and development for its 2100 employees. We believe that customer service and the experience our members have when they visit one of our gyms is vital to our success as a business. As such we've worked hard over the last three years to improve the entire member experience and particularly the transparency of our sign-up procedures.

The culmination of this was the launch in January 2012 of our Member Pledge (www.lafitness.co.uk/member-pledge). It works alongside our contract Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) (www.lafitness.co.uk/tandcs) to clearly set out what potential, new and existing members can expect from us. It goes above and beyond our contractual commitments to our members (and their commitment to LA fitness) because we understand that life isn't black and white. It also includes our very clear policies on membership cancellation, loss of earnings, illness and injury and moving away.

In the event of any member experiencing difficulties with or questions about their membership our experienced Member Services team will work with them to find the best solution. Many queries will be covered by our comprehensive FAQs set out on our website www.lafitness.co.uk/faqs/

We follow the FIA (Fitness Industry Association) Code of Conduct which sets out the industry standards. LA fitness prides itself on following these standards and we believe the introduction of our self sign up kiosk process provides an unparalleled level of transparency for anyone who may wish to join. It has been designed to ensure the potential member remains in full control of the joining process. Self sign up also includes the option to select from 1, 6, 12 & 24 month contracts.

LA fitness Contracts

• Flexible contracts are available eg 1 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months


• Members who commit to a longer membership gain the benefit of a more competitive rate


• 85% of new members sign-up at our in-club, digital, interactive kiosks requiring 3 x signatures of our T&Cs


• All members signing up via kiosk receive an instant email directing them to our T&Cs


• All members that sign up either via kiosk, over the telephone or on line have a 10-day cooling-off period


• A Welcome Letter is sent typically within 7 days of joining directing to our FAQs and T&Cs on our website


• As with most initial term contracts (eg satellite TV & mobile phones) the direct debit payment rolls over into a month to month and members need to give 30 days written notice to terminate the membership


• In all circumstances, our new Member Pledge applies to all members

Two Watchdog researchers signed up to a 6 month membership, one of whom joined through our Kiosk in club where an email would have been sent automatically confirming the pre-agreement and our T&Cs. Both researchers cancelled within 7 days by calling our Member Services team. They exercised their right to cancel within our 10 day cooling off period which was honoured as part of our new Member Pledge. All new members receive a Welcome letter which directs them to the FAQs and T&Cs on our website and offers potential Members an opportunity to discuss concerns and indeed change their mind. These are sent typically within 7 days. The other researchers in your programme did not sign up to membership, and therefore would not have been part of our aftersale
process.

Despite the disappointing experience of the Watchdog researchers more than 50% of our members have been with us for more than 12 months, 35% for more than two years and around 15% for more than five years - our average length of stay for all members is 22months. Around 120,000 people join our clubs each year, so whilst any poor sales experience is regrettable, we accept that mistakes can happen. However, where we are made aware of it, we aim to remedy the situation as soon as possible and address any internal staff failing through re-training or disciplinary procedures as appropriate.

In response to the four specific case studies that the Watchdog programme have sent to us, two of them concerned members who wanted to terminate their contracts because they were moving home to an area not easily commutable to one of our clubs. Neither of these cases would have happened following the launch of our Member Pledge in which we've said that anyone moving 10 miles or more from an LA fitness is eligible to cancel their contract on proof of change of address. This distance is 'rule of thumb' and again our Member Services team is happy to discuss individual circumstances.

The two further cases you have highlighted to us were dealt with by our member services team once the full facts were revealed to us. We want to confirm that both employees were dismissed for misspelling memberships, and we cancelled and closed both membership accounts with all outstanding payments removed. We also contacted our credit management teams to cease all contact, and apologised to the individuals in both matters.

We would like to reiterate that it is important that all new joiners carefully read our terms and conditions when they sign up. In the event that a member does wish to terminate their contract it is vital that they call our member services department 0844 770 7700 or email: member.relations@lafitness.co.uk and discuss their requirements before cancelling any direct debit.

A spokesperson for the Fitness Industry Association (FIA) said:

Our vision, to get more people, more active, more often, is shared by our members who want their customers to have a positive experience, to enjoy physical activity through their provision and to regularly return because they feel motivated to lead an active lifestyle.

UK health clubs and leisure centres offer a wide variety of membership options to suit individual budgets and training needs. When joining in person at the facility or over the telephone, membership services teams should be trained to advise customers of all possible joining options and the terms and conditions related to each. When joining through online channels, all terms and conditions must be clearly communicated. Staff should also be on hand to advise customers throughout their membership term.

We advise all customers to thoroughly read and understand contractual terms and conditions before signing an agreement. Many of our members now offer various ways for potential customers to have an experience at their facility before buying, so if you are joining a gym for the first time, David Stalker, CEO, FIA advises you to: "take them up on one of their offers and try before you buy".

The FIA believe in following the rulings drawn up by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), and following the 2011 OFT v Ashbourne Management Services ruling, issued key recommendations relating to contracts. These included guidance on adequate and reasonable provision for a consumer to end or pause a contract before the minimum term in certain circumstances, on the provision of evidence. With the recent OFT investigation to reconcile outstanding issues from the Ashbourne Management Services Limited case, the FIA have continued to play an advisory role working with the OFT case team.
 

Operating around the North London area, Chris Marino used to run a company called GardenBase Ltd. He now runs Buildline Landscapes, the trading name of Lloyds Mint Ltd. He has no connection other companies which may have similar names.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Jenny Farmer met Chris Marino and his team last August. She wanted new pathways and a new patio area and a wider path. However, part way through the job, the walls weren't straight, the bricks were not cut properly and the patio was a mess. Marino claimed there was nothing wrong with the work carried out by his team. However, after an argument with Jenny's son, he agreed to send in someone to put things right. The result was still poor, according to Jenny, as there were "bricks that were loose, not cut properly. Some steps were higher than others; the walls up the side of the path were not straight."

Nearly two months after they started work, and despite Jenny's concerns, Chris Marino claimed the job was fine and charged £12,000 for the work. Jenny has since spoken to three other landscape gardeners and they told her that it would cost approximately £6,000 to put right.

It turns out that Marino had also been taking money out of people's accounts without their say-so; Trading Standards had investigated him twice. We decided to investigate him too.
We met Mark Gregory, a gardening expert. Mark assessed the garden of the house we had hired to and identified three projects that needed to be done: a hazel stump in the middle of the garden needed to be removed, both a laurel tree and an old fruit tree needed to be cut down to ground level, and on the left hand side of the garden, there was a scrub pile of rubble, some plastic guttering and children's toys that need taken away. Mark estimates it as no more than a day's work for one person, with a maximum cost of £350.

Chris Marino arrived and charged £12 just to give a quote. Our stooge, Alison, showed Chris the garden. After he assessed the garden, and promised both a tidy-up and removal of the hazel stump, as well as offering up Lawrence Phillips who he describes as a 'grade one horticulturalist' to do the job, Chris quoted Alison £750 plus £165 for waste removal - that's £1100 including VAT for a simple garden tidy up.

Chris told Alison she had to pay half the cost as a deposit and the other half when the job is done. We agreed to pay him £550, but later that day he took the entire sum from our account. The courts had already warned Chris Marino not to take money from people's accounts without their approval, so it seemed like he was up to his old tricks.

Lawrence Phillips arrived and homeowner Alison shows him around whilst expert Mark got in position. Lawrence tackled the tree stump first but Mark immediately spotted a problem: Lawrence was using a panel saw. A panel saw is a carpentry saw; in other words, it is a joiner's saw as opposed to a gardener's saw - and if you haven't got the right kit, the job's going to be a lot tougher and much more time-consuming.

After much huff and puff, Lawrence finally kicked out the stump. He then moved on to the fruit tree - and looked like he was limbering up to do it. At one point, Mark noted that Lawrence was on the floor, wrestling the tree. We even heard Lawrence telling the tree that he would "destroy it". He finally managed to remove it and moved on to the next task: moving the rubble. However, Lawrence hadn't brought his wheelbarrow. Instead, he used an old rickety one that he found lying around.

Mark Gregory commented: "You always bring your own stuff, you don't use the clients tools. It's completely the wrong wheelbarrow for doing a job like this. He's going to rut the grass."

Lawrence then started moving the rubble. He ended up dumping more green waste at the bottom of Alison's garden. Not content with hiding waste there, he also threw it into the neighbour's garden. Mark observed: "He's messed about all day long, he hasn't a clue what he's doing, he's running out of light, so he's dumping stuff just to get off the job."

The job wasn't finished - but Lawrence was. Before leaving, he called his boss, Chris Marino. Marino had already taken the full £1100 from our account, but it seemed he wants even more. Lawrence asked Alison to pay half the balance by cheque to him; that would be another £550 - which we didn't give him.

So Lawrence left, and in doing so left us with an unfinished job and a mess of a garden, all for £1100 including VAT. That works out at £107 per hour. After initially wanting to charge extra for coming back, Chris finally agreed to send his man around to finish the job for free.
Lawrence still didn't bring his own wheelbarrow, but he still had to shift all of the rubble and plastic toys that he had been paid to get rid of. Whilst he took away most of the rubble, he ended up stashing the plastic around the garden, the plastic that he was contracted to remove. A quick grass cut later and Lawrence left. Upon leaving, he assured Alison that all the rubble, trees and plastics are all gone.

Mark concluded that Lawrence's work was "chaotic and shambolic" and as for the cost, he observed that "It didn't stack up during the quotation and it certainly didn't stack up during the viewing. He could have easily done it within seven hours if he had the right equipment; he just made a lash of it."

It was time for Matt Allwright and the Rogue Traders team to step in and confront Mr Marino. Trading Standards made Chris sign an undertaking not to overcharge people and take money from their accounts without their express permission; with that came a suspended prison sentence if he continued to carry on doing what he is doing.

We called Chris out to a different garden, in Enfield, North London. Chris arrived to give us a quote for work. This cost us £12, but we were not interested in the quote; we wanted to give Chris Marino what could be a vision of his future - a chain gang was ready to start work in the garden. Our stooge explained that the chain gang was "from the local prison". She reassured Chris that they were just doing community service. Upon this revelation, Matt stepped out to question Chris about his actions. For nearly 45 minutes, Chris Marino tried to defend his actions. He explained "I really don't see what we've done wrong. I, honestly, hand on heart; we've done nothing wrong here."

It was clear there was no getting through to Chris Marino, so it was time to call it a day.

Chris Marino response:

Chris Marino has denied our allegations and denies he's breached the undertakings. He was keen to point out that it wasn't him who carried out the work and that if he'd known we were still unhappy he would have put things right. He says he's always been pleased with Lawrence's work in the past and that it was a mistake that some of the money was asked for twice. He says the suspended prison sentence was given by the civil courts, not the criminal courts.

Regarding Jenny Farmer, he told us he's always come out when she has complained and has already offered her some of the money back.

Once he's seen the programme tonight he'll decide whether we'll get any money back.

In January 2012 the Office of Fair Trading launched an inquiry into all leading health and fitness clubs across the UK, following concerns that they had been breaking the law by tying members into lengthy contracts and making it very difficult for customers to get out of them. So, with an official investigation underway, surely the biggest gym chain in the country will be playing by the rules? Apparently not. Chris Hollins investigated for Watchdog.

Around 190,000 people join Fitness First each year. We've been hearing from members who wish they hadn't. Charlotte Hill is one such person; she signed up to Fitness First when they were promoting a summer deal for four months as it suited her well due to the fact she was moving at the end of that period. She spoke originally spoke to Fitness First over the phone and then went in to her local branch and signed the paperwork. Charlie set up the direct debit in her savings account, which wasn't something she checked every day and it wasn't till a year later that she noticed Fitness First had taken almost £450 from her account.

Katia Bouznik also signed up on a four month contract where she was told that after the four months were up, her contract wouldn't continue. However four weeks after Katia's end date, another payment was taken from her account. What Katia wasn't told was that her contract would roll over afterwards; in fact, Katia was charged for two months after her original end date because she was subsequently told that she had to give one month's notice.

According to both Charlie and Katia, they were never shown the terms and conditions at any point. But aren't there rules about that?

Well, actually yes there are: the Guidance on Unfair Terms in Health and Fitness Club agreements published by the Office of Fair Trading in 2002. These make it quite clear that gyms should give their potential customers the opportunity to both read and understand their terms before they become bound by them.

Having heard from Charlie, Katia and many more Watchdog viewers we decided to go undercover to investigate the complaints we had received. We sent two researchers to ten branches of Fitness First around the UK to find out just how upfront Fitness First staff are about the contractual small print. In turns out they weren't very upfront at all.

None of the staff at any of the ten branches we visited offered to show us the terms and conditions. The only times we did see them were when we asked for them. At the Hammersmith branch in London we were even told by a Fitness First employee that the terms and conditions didn't exist, however, he did eventually produce them but only gave us 33 seconds to read 2,295 words.

Incredibly, in five of the branches we visited, staff even ticked the box on our behalf certifying that we had read the terms and conditions, even though we hadn't. In two branches they told us that they would send the contract to us - but only after we had signed up.

The OFT guidance also points out that gyms should make an effort to highlight and explain important contractual provisions; for example, if you have a direct debit with Fitness First, your membership will continue beyond the expiry date unless you contact them to cancel it. Plus, you need to get in touch with the gym a whole month before you want it to end. These would seem to be pretty important parts of the contract but not all staff seemed to agree. In fact, only five branches volunteered the fact that our membership would automatically rollover; a Cardiff branch failed to tell us at all and four branches only told us about the rollover once we'd asked.

Two branches didn't even mention anything about the month notice period we would need to give in order to cancel. Commercial and Contracts Lawyer, Mark Weston, points out that one of the things the consumer protection from unfair trading says is that: "You can't omit or hide any material information. Now, any terms are going to be material, key information...If the company doesn't show the terms and conditions or doesn't show the main important points verbally then what they are actually doing is deceiving in terms of the overall presentation."

Gym membership doesn't come cheap, so it's no surprise that some people have second thoughts when they sign up. The OFT says all gyms should provide a cooling off period where would-be members can change their mind. The Fitness First contract does allow you ten days to do that but two branches didn't tell us about it and one branch even told us that they weren't allowed to tell us!

Mark Weston concludes: "There are a lot of issues here, now the regulators, the OFT obviously looked at this about ten years ago. I think in light of all this footage they should be taking a look at this again ten years later... Some of the practices we've seen, seem to be very shoddy at best and potentially those are in breach of the Consumer protection from unfair Trading Regulations."

Statement to Watchdog viewers and Fitness First members

We sincerely regret that some of our members feel that they have been misled by employees of Fitness First. We apologise for any inconvenience or dissatisfaction that may have caused. This is not the level of service and transparency that we aspire to achieve, and clearly not up to the level of standard that our members should expect from us day by day.

Since February of this year, we have a new senior management team in place at Fitness First who are acutely aware of the need to ensure that customer service is at the top of our agenda. We consistently try to make Fitness First better for our members, and we take each complaint extremely seriously. We would ask any members with concerns regarding their membership to contact us at membershipservices@fitnessfirst.com. We pledge to respond to all emails as quickly as possible.

In the cases highlighted by Watchdog, we accept that the service some members received was not in line with our values. We have not had the opportunity to view all of the footage, rather the edited highlights shortly before the programme airing; however, we have begun to investigate each allegation case by case.

Over 190,000 new members decided to join Fitness First in the last 12 months and our internal surveys show that a large majority are satisfied with the administrative process of joining and leaving. Our membership consultants currently number 372 and each receives extensive training. Included in their training is specific guidance on the regulations that protect consumers; this is encouraged and expected to be followed by all Fitness First employees. We recognise that there may be selective instances where, due to human error, these guidelines may not have been followed.

Terms and Conditions are an important part of the sign-up process. In fact, the key points of our membership agreement are highlighted to make them more visible and this, along with other recommendations from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Plain English Society, has formed part of our membership agreement evolution over the last few years. It is the duty of our staff to clearly explain the terms and conditions that appear on our membership agreements; however, part of the onus is on the consumer to make sure that they are familiar with these.

These are just some of the ways that we are putting our members first:

• We have worked with 'The Plain English' society to re-write our contracts and have also changed our terms and conditions in consultation with the OFT to make sure that all communications are clear and not misleading. For example, we reduced the complexity of the terms and conditions and also highlighted the key points including contract length and billing processes which are now in bold on all membership application forms.
• Every membership sold includes a 10 day "cooling off" period.
• In February 2011, we introduced a new certification process consisting of training & development programmes and assessment process to ensure our thousands of staff are equipped with the required skills, knowledge and behaviours to meet our requirements.
• Action is taken when staff have not followed our code of conduct and have acted outside company policy.
• Over the last year we have called over 10,000 members as part of a structured programme of gathering member feedback. We now regularly host secret shopper activity as a precautionary measure in our clubs to identify where we are not working in line with our mission and values. We feel that inconsistencies are not a trend, but are isolated instances. We are working hard to eliminate these instances completely.
• In December 2011, we launched 'The Fitness First Promise' as a statement of our intent to put members' needs first. This is something we feel very passionate about upholding. We take instances where this is not being followed very seriously and have adhered to the Promise since its introduction. Fitness First are in the process of incorporating the Promise into the terms and conditions.
• In March 2012, we introduced month-by-month rolling contracts. With these new agreements, all we ask for is one calendar month's notice to cancel at any time, allowing members even greater flexibility should they require it.

We can assure you that we take all feedback that we receive very seriously and are determined to address it. Since Watchdog has highlighted these cases, we have acted promptly to address each of these complaints and have contacted all members to rectify their situations.

A spokesperson for the Fitness Industry Association (FIA) said:

Our vision, to get more people, more active, more often, is shared by our members who want their customers to have a positive experience, to enjoy physical activity through their provision and to regularly return because they feel motivated to lead an active lifestyle.

UK health clubs and leisure centres offer a wide variety of membership options to suit individual budgets and training needs. When joining in person at the facility or over the telephone, membership services teams should be trained to advise customers of all possible joining options and the terms and conditions related to each. When joining through online channels, all terms and conditions must be clearly communicated. Staff should also be on hand to advise customers throughout their membership term.

We advise all customers to thoroughly read and understand contractual terms and conditions before signing an agreement. Many of our members now offer various ways for potential customers to have an experience at their facility before buying, so if you are joining a gym for the first time, David Stalker, CEO, FIA advises you to: "take them up on one of their offers and try before you buy".

The FIA believe in following the rulings drawn up by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), and following the 2011 OFT v Ashbourne Management Services ruling, issued key recommendations relating to contracts. These included guidance on adequate and reasonable provision for a consumer to end or pause a contract before the minimum term in certain circumstances, on the provision of evidence. With the recent OFT investigation to reconcile outstanding issues from the Ashbourne Management Services Limited case, the FIA have continued to play an advisory role working with the OFT case team.
 

If you're heading off on holiday this Easter, chances are you may have booked a flight with British Airways, Thomas Cook, easyJet or Qatar Airways and thought you'd bagged a great deal. That's because these airlines all had recent sales.

But before you get too smug, we've unearthed some very sneaky tactics which could mean that your savings might not be as good as you think. Rebecca Wilcox reports.

You don't have to be an expert in all things linguistics but when you see the word "Sale" you expect that to mean "lower than usual prices for a limited period" in which you can bag yourself a bargain. Or to put it another way... the prices will be cheaper during the sale than before or after. But when it comes to some of our best known airlines, that's not always the case.

In January, Graham Wright booked two April flights to St Petersburg in the British Airways "Goodbye Winter" sale, for his wife's birthday. Graham knew the sale was on and saw that he could book the trip for a total of £580, so rushed to book as the website told him there were only five seats left at that price. Graham told us that he assumed that once the sale ended the prices would increase. But when Graham went up to upgrade his seats to make the trip a bit more special, he noticed that the flights were £200 cheaper and despite the sale having since ended. Graham told us he felt angry and duped into buying the seats.

Consumer Law expert Deborah Parry told us: "BA may be contravening the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations in that it is falsely suggesting that a product is only available at a reduced price for a limited period, so that it encourages the consumer to take an immediate decision to purchase rather than reflecting properly on the transaction."

We've found other airlines potentially committing similar breaches, like Thomas Cook. Sharon Jackson monitored the price of her flights to Turkey throughout its sale in October. On the very day that sale ended, she bagged herself a flight for £201, only to discover that less than 24 hours later... a seat for the same flight was more than £50 cheaper!

But that's nothing compared to what Nick Waldock experienced with Qatar Airways when he booked through their '3 Day Global Sale last year. Nick wanted to book flights to Colombo as he planned to watch England's test match in Sri Lanka in March this year. Before the sale started the prices were £510; on the first day of the sale, Nick expected the price to drop but in fact they had gone up to £573. The price remained the same during the sale and fearing the flight prices would increase once the sale ended, Nick booked on the last day of the sale. But much to Nick's frustration, hours after the sale ended, he saw the price dropped to £495. Nick told us he felt the promotion has misled consumers and he wanted an explanation. Sadly Qatar Airways didn't provide one, they simply replied to Nick stating that, "Fares are subject to change without prior notice depending on the seat availability."

But should they? Deborah's Parry explains: "The airline's claim that the price may fluctuate due to supply and demand is not applicable here. If demand has gone up during the sale then by the end of the sale there will be fewer seats available and so logically the price ought to go up even higher after the sale, in fact the price came down after the sale.

To find out how volatile flight prices can be, we monitored twenty flights in the easyJet Leap year sale in February. The message given by the ad was clear. 'Get in early as prices may rise during the sale period, and book before midnight on Wednesday' when the sale ends. Eighteen flights did go down after the sale, leaving us with two that didn't.
It's certainly confusing and these airlines know it. When they advertise a sale price, they don't tell you what the previous price was so how are you supposed to know if you're getting a good deal or not?

According to Deborah Parry, failing to give you that previous price is potentially a breach of the law: "Breach of Regulation 6 can lead to administrative sanctions being taken or even a prosecution for a criminal offense. There is no reason at all for airline ticket sellers not to have to comply with these provisions, they apply to traders in general and airlines should comply with the requirements."

A Qatar Airways spokesperson said:

Qatar Airways is very conscious of the importance of consumer clarity when running promotional campaigns and of our responsibility, under UK and European best practice, in ensuring that all promotional activity is clear, fair and easily understood.

We were therefore concerned to hear of Mr. Waldock's complaint and appreciate the opportunity to clarify any confusion caused during his booking process.

We include the fare information with this correspondence to assist with our explanation of the circumstances that have led to Mr. Waldock's complaint.

The fare offers referred to on 31 August and the 4 September were applicable to the UK market only and are based on our UK pricing structure, which is determined specifically in alignment with UK market forces. These were included in a UK promotion and as such were found in the 'London Special Offers' section of the Qatar Airways website.

To give perspective on the size of the UK campaign, starting 4th September, there were only 23 destinations on offer from London Heathrow and 19 destinations from Manchester, giving 42 possible origin and destination options.

This is in stark contrast to the many hundred origin and destination combinations being offered during the global sale. The fare during this three-day sale, which ran from 1-3 September, was indeed higher than that offered during the UK-led promotions in August and September. This is due to the pricing of the global three-day sale, where a percentage discount is offered from the year-round fare - referred to as 'base airfare' in the terms and conditions.

This differs to the UK-led activity, which is proposed and submitted by the UK pricing team, and following benchmarking against UK market prices, which often results in more aggressive pricing.

As any commercial airline, we continue to run tactical campaigns promoting our flight offers from the UK. However, the UK market also participates in global sales that run across several markets. We are sorry that this was not outlined to Mr. Waldock before now but hope that this explanation has helped to clarify the circumstances that dictated his fares.

A British Airways spokesperson said:

British Airways is mindful of its obligations under advertising and marketing laws and takes them very seriously.

The aviation market is extremely competitive and dynamic and we have to react quickly to the market in order to ensure we are offering our customers competitive prices.

Mr Wright bought a discounted flight in a promotion that, unfortunately, was subsequently available at a lower price after the promotional period ended. Despite our original intention to revert back to a higher price, declining demand and aggressive pricing by competitors meant that, in order to remain competitive in the marketplace, we maintained a lower price for the flight.

We understand Mr Wright's frustration and we apologise for any disappointment he experienced. However, this was an isolated incident and certainly not an attempt to mislead the customer.

An easyJet spokesperson said:

"easyJet is committed to offering great value fares in a clear and transparent way. Our leap year sale cut seat prices by up to 20% between 24 and 29th February. Nearly 200,000 customers booked with us saving a total of £2.7M on our usual prices.

"In general, easyJet flight prices start low and then increase. Different batches of seats are sold at different prices. We sell the cheapest seats first and once sold out, we sell the next cheapest batch. Usually this means flights get more expensive as it gets closer to take off. However, sometimes, if demand is not as strong as predicted, our dynamic pricing system may reduce fares to encourage sales.

When we run a promotional sale, we simply discount all prices within the defined period. The way we and our system manage fares doesn't change which means that prices will still go up as the cheapest seats are sold. The only difference is that all seat prices are discounted.

"After the leap year sale, a very small number of our flights hadn't performed as well as expected. Our system responded by reducing the prices on those flights. In practice, this meant that less than 5% of our customers paid more in the sale than they would have if they bought after - on average by £4 per seat. This was unintended and unfortunate and clearly had we have known, we would have either promoted an extension to the sale or manually overridden the system. We do have a price guarantee that covers customers in the rare event that this happens, but accept that not all customers may spot this.
"easyJet is committed to doing the right thing for our customers. We know our dynamic pricing system delivers many of the best flight deals a customer can buy. However, we also see the point being made by Watchdog around how this works after a promotion finishes. We have therefore e-mailed all the customers affected by this issue and will be refunding them the difference between the price paid and the price the day after the promotion concluded where that was cheaper. We're processing the emails now and aim to get them all out by noon, Thursday 5 April.

"easyJet's aim is to be fair and transparent with our customers so if we were to run such a promotion again we would ensure this issue is completely addressed."

Commenting on Mrs Jackson's flythomascook.com booking in October 2011, a Thomas Cook spokesperson said:

"At the time of advertising and during a sale, our prices are reduced from the price previously available - but flight prices always remain fluid and can go up or down at any time depending on the number of seats remaining and the departure date. This is called fluid pricing and is how most airlines price flights. In Mrs Jackson's case, when the sale finished, the price automatically reduced due to the number of seats left. This is an exceptional case, but as a gesture of goodwill we refunded the difference and provided in-flight meals free of charge."

Notes:
- Euro120 was refunded to meet the price difference on 25th October in 2011
- In-flight Meals have been provided for the party
- Flythomascook offered a gesture of goodwill due to the specific circumstances in Mrs Jackson's case, which were not anticipated when the sale period ended

KGB Deals and LivingSocial are all major players in the rapidly expanding internet phenomenon 'Daily Deals'. If you register with one of their websites you'll receive regular emails offering great offers in your area. Sounds great, but is it? Ricky Boleto reports.

The adverts are everywhere and more and more of us are being tempted by them. According to a new survey, 68% of us have tried one of the growing number of daily deals sites. But it isn't all good news for companies like this, because after we have used them over a third of us don't buy from the same product supplier again.

This would seem to suggest that some customers aren't happy. Some of these customers have contacted us.

Wayne Tribe used KGB when he planned a weekend stay in Edinburgh for his partner's birthday. He wanted to surprise her with something special and thought that the deal KBG were offering was a massive discount and "looked great". 'B Suites' who own the apartment confirmed his booking, but 16 days later they emailed him again saying he couldn't stay on the days he wanted due to a technical error. And what was worse was that they couldn't give him any money back as the money was still with KGB.

The good news is that KGB have got a refund policy, but the bad news is that anyone wanting to claim must do so within 10 days. So, as B Suites took 16 days to tell Wayne his booking was cancelled, did that mean he had missed the deadline? Wayne doesn't know as KGB said they would look into it, but three months later, he's still waiting.
So, are KGB any more helpful when a product you have ordered arrives damaged? The Bhengras were delighted when they found KGB offering a brand new bed for £229. When it arrived, the headboard and the bed were both covered in mould.

KGB will refund customers if they return faulty or unwanted goods to the supplier within 10 days. But as hard as the Bhengras tried to return their faulty bed to the furniture supplier, they simply couldn't: none of the phone numbers were working, one was going to answerphone and they received automated replies to their emails - and no one has got back to them. The couple still have their mouldy bed, and they have had precious little help from KGB.

When you're using a group-buying site like KGB or LivingSocial, you may think your contract for what you're buying is with them. It's not - the contract is with whoever is supplying the product or service. However, those group buying sites do have certain responsibilities, such as ensuring that the suppliers they use can actually come up with the good and services in the time frame suggested.

LivingSocial, the daily deal website specialising in lifestyle experiences, seems to take its responsibilities seriously, as it makes a pledge that if a supplier fails to honour a voucher before the expiration date, LivingSocial will refund customers with credit for future deals. If only they always stuck by it.

Dance music fan Reece George is determined to become a DJ, so when his mum saw LivingSocial advertising a five hour DJ class at the Ministry Of Sound nightclub, it seemed the ideal Christmas gift. When Reece called Ministry Of Sound in November to book his place, he was told that the course was fully booked and was advised to call back nearer the time of the next course in February. When he did so, Ministry Of Sound took his details but failed to get back to him with confirmation. Complaints to LivingSocial didn't do any good either. The February course came and went - and Reece's Christmas gift had become useless as the expiry date of the voucher had since passed. Reece received no experience and no refund, despite the promise on LivingSocial's website.

It's a promise that has let other customers down too. Elizabeth Ludlow bought a voucher for a 'thrill-seekers' speedboat ride in December 2011 as a present for her son who was due to emigrate to New Zealand. As the voucher stated it was valid through until June 11th 2012, she assumed it could be redeemed straight away. Instead, he got a nasty surprise: when he went to book his ride, he was told they didn't even start until March, but which time he'd have left the country. Elizabeth has now waited three months for a refund and for LivingSocial to resolve the issue, and her son has since emigrated. She, like other customers with similar experiences, wants to know why...

A kgbdeals spokesperson said:

kgbdeals has fulfilled over 97% of all its customer purchases in the last two years. Vouchers are sold, redeemed and fulfilled exactly as advertised. The remainder comprises customers who have changed their minds and obtain a refund, difficulties with supply by the retailer, or other problems with fulfilment.
For all purchases, kgbdeals ensures it provides all customers with service and protection in line with consumer law. We act on their behalf in resolving any issues with retailers, and we stand by our no quibble customer service. This additional support is welcomed by our customers and we are justifiably proud of our standards and service. Of course, sometimes resolution can take longer than it should, and we are working tirelessly to improve our service standards to be the best in class.
Regarding the two cases you have shared with us, had the customers bought direct from the suppliers at full retail price, our additional service and protection would not have been available. We believe the peace of mind offered by our daily deals service is a powerful reason for its success, in addition to the very good value for money.
Mr & Mrs Bhengra first contacted us on the 7th March and we replied the next day, sending a further six emails to keep them informed of progress and resolve the problem with the supplier. They have now informed us they are satisfied with the resolution of the problem, and told us they will use kgbdeals again.
Mr Tribe first contacted us on the 9th January and we replied the next day. His case was more complex and it took longer to resolve due to a technical error with our database logging, but I am satisfied our customer service team did everything they could to stay in touch with Mr Tribe and sort out the issues with the supplier. The problems with the purchase have been resolved and he too has told us he would use kgbdeals again.

A B Suites spokesperson said:

We want to make it clear to all our current guests of all of our branches and of any potential guests, that we have a very generous refund policy and allow guests to cancel reservations at any point and promise that they will receive a full refund. We have offered the guest a complimentary stay with us at any of our branches for a full weekend of their choosing. We can only be thankful that this is not a regular occurance and we will continue to do our utmost to ensure that our high level of customer service remains.

A LivingSocial spokesperson said:

LivingSocial places customer service at the very heart of our business and we strive to ensure members and partners alike benefit from a great experience with us.
We are, of course, extremely disappointed to hear of instances where LivingSocial hasen't lived up to the high service standards we set for ourselves. In the specific cases of Elizabeth Ludlow and Reece George, both parties have received a full refund, and a personal apology from Peter Briffett, Managing Director of LivingSocial UK and Ireland.
At LivingSocial, we pride ourselves on being the premium local commerce provider; offering daily deals, luxury escapes and fantastic experiences to over 60 million subscribers worldwide.

With quality at the heart of our business model, LivingSocial has built its operation to facilitate the best possible experiences for all parties involved in our offers - from a dedicated deal quality team who ensure deals are clear and compliant both with the UK CAP Code and with consumer protection standards, to a dedicated client service division that helps ensure our business partners truly optimise the services we offer.
With 'boots on the ground' in every market we operate in, our teams of local experts work closely in partnership with the best and brightest local businesses, ensuring we continue to surprise and delight our customers with exciting new experiences in their local area, at great value.

LivingSocial welcomes feedback from both members and partners as we look to constantly improve the way we work. After every deal, consumers are invited to leave feedback on their experience and tell us whether they would return to the business. We encourage any member who has questions about a deal they have purchased through LivingSocial to contact our customer service team at 0800 014 8431 or go to help.livingsocial.com.
To reiterate, with regards to the specific cases discussed today, LivingSocial has carried out a full internal investigation into both incidents. We are sorry that Elizabeth Ludlow and Reece George experienced trouble in redeeming their vouchers, and a full refund, along with a personal apology from our Managing Director has been issued to both customers.

A Ministry of Sound spokesperson said:

"Thank you Watchdog for bringing this matter to our attention. Our Academy courses are incredibly popular with aspiring DJs and are an important part of what makes Ministry of Sound so well-loved around the world. Supporting and promoting young talent is what we are all about. However, in this instance there appears to have been a breakdown in communication with Living Social and ultimately we fell short of the high level of customer service on which we pride ourselves. We have written to Reece and his mum to apologise. Reece's mum will get a full refund and Reece will be invited to a forthcoming DJ Academy course completely free of charge."

Believe it or not, there's a property boom in the UK right now, but it's for property to let rather than property to buy. Raising a deposit and getting a mortgage has never been tougher, and that's good news for landlords (and landladies), as their rental properties are in high demand. However, Rogue Traders has discovered one lettings company that has been taking payments from potential tenants, guaranteeing them that the property is theirs, and then keeping the property on the market so they can collect similar payments from others.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The company is based near Manchester and is run by property tycoon Brendan Kiely, who owns a number of companies, including Bentley Residential Lettings Ltd.

One prospective tenant, Roxy, saw a house with a sign in the window that said: 'To Let. £200 and move in.' Roxy subsequently arranged a viewing with a man named Chris. He showed Roxy around the property and told her that work was going to be done on it. He explained that the £200 would take the property off the market for Roxy and her family. Roxy got the money together and then around a week later happened to walk by the property on the school run and saw a friend of hers viewing it with Chris. Her friend had already signed the papers and had handed over their £200 payment as well.

Chris told Roxy that she had called Bentley Residential Lettings and said she didn't want the property anymore. Roxy says this is not true, "I was in shock, because I thought I was having this property. I'd paid £200," Roxy explained. Roxy pursued the company afterward but she found that either her calls were put on hold, weren't returned or were cut off completely. She never got her money back

We have also spoken to Helen. She also paid £200 to agent Chris to guarantee a property from Bentley Residential Lettings Ltd. The property was damp and needed repairs, but she was told it would be improved for her. Months later, the work still hadn't been done. While she was waiting for it to be completed, Helen discovered the same property was being advertised again, this time by a different company called 'Best Lettings For You', which was also owned by Brendan Kiely.

Helen made an appointment under a different name and went with her mum to the house. She hid in the car and waited for the lettings agent to arrive, and when he did, Helen saw that it was the exact same man, Chris, from Bentleys who had originally shown her around the property. The place was in the same state as her original visit and he even gave the same speech, including the information about damp. Helen explained that Chris then panicked; he then rang back to the head office, where he claims he was told that Helen had not been in contact with Bentleys so they thought she was not interested in the house. Helen maintains this was "a complete lie".

Donna also viewed a property that was in a bad state, and yet again in return for a £200 payment, Bentley Residential Lettings promised they'd take it off the market and do all the necessary repairs within four weeks. When it came to her moving day Donna explained: "Still no work had been done, walls wet through, damp in kitchen cupboards, mould growing everywhere, plants growing out of the floorboards. I wouldn't put a dog in a house like this. I wanted my money back, basically." Donna tried to contact the company, but the man who'd taken her money wouldn't take her calls.

We wanted to find out more about Brendan Kiely's companies and what they were up to. However, this time we didn't invite the traders to a house to secretly film them; instead, Rogue Traders' undercover stooges were going to theirs.

We lined up three potential renters and sent them in, one after the other. We wanted to establish if the company would take payment off each potential tenant and promise them all the same property. Best Lettings For You was advertising a house to rent in Preston. To secure it, all you had to do is put down £200.

Gemma was the first member of our undercover team to arrive. She was met by two agents from Best Lettings For You. One of them did the talking, the other, Scott, was there throughout so he knew exactly what was being said. Gemma was informed that there were a number of viewings on the property, and was then told that if she was interested in taking tenancy an application would be made and a £200 administration fee taken. When Gemma enquired as to whether the fee secured the property, she was told that it secures it as long as "everything is ok" with her documentation. Gemma then asked if she would get the £200 back if there were any problems with her paperwork, she was told that the £200 is non-refundable. However, she was assured that the only "issues are if people don't get documentation back in time."

Gemma also enquired about what would happen if someone else viewed the property that day and liked it. Gemma was told that if somebody did come to view the property and did want it then the agent would have to advise that person that they had somebody going through the process and if everything goes through for her then the property would not be available for them.

Commercial and Fraud lawyer, Mark Weston, assessed the undercover footage and concluded: "That's quite clear; she's been told unambiguously that if anybody shows interest they will be told that this lady has put her money down."

Gemma then hands over her £200 secure in the knowledge that the property is hers; all she has to do is get her paperwork to them in time.

Thirty minutes later, Daniel, our second would-be tenant arrived. However, rather than telling Daniel that there was a viewer who was interested in the property, Scott Marshall, who was present during Gemma's viewing, told Daniel that there were other viewings on the property but then proceeded to tell him that if he paid the £200 fee then he wouldn't be putting anybody else's name down. In fact, Scott says no fewer than six times that he won't put anyone else's name down on the property, so a reassured Daniel reached into his pocket for £200.

Just half an hour after Daniel left, our third would-be tenant, Jim, arrived at the door, and was promptly greeted by Scott Marshall. Scott explained that he had two viewings in the morning, and both parties are interested in the property. However, Scott reassured Jim that if he does put the administration fee down, nobody else's name would go on the property. Jim asked Scott whether anything had been secured so far, to which Scott told Jim "No, not at the moment no". Mark Weston said: "That is a definite lie. In terms of a fraud, that is a fraudulent misrepresentation. He's telling him something that's not true in order to get the £200."

We needed clarification as to whether we were dealing with one rogue letting agent or whether it was company policy to guarantee a property for more than one person, so they can pocket multiple payments.

A few days later, Jim headed for the company's offices in Middleton. He explained that he had heard rumours that other people were interested in the same property had put his money down for and that they had also put an application fee down and he wanted to check whether this was the case. He was reassured that the property was secured for him for the seven days while he gets his paperwork in and that if they took £200 from anybody else in that time, it would be "theft".

Jim then sought more reassurance that the property was his - this time with a manager. She checked for Jim and reassured him that nobody else had put anything down on the property, and the company was simply waiting for Jim's paperwork.

Lawyer Mark Weston assessed all of Rogue Traders findings: "There's no shades of grey there, it's black and white. They were caught in an outright lie, not once, not twice, but three or four times. Legally there's a whole host of things that's wrong with that. It certainly seems as if the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies."

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, companies cannot do anything misleading with an effect that causes a consumer to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. Here, would-be tenants are paying out £200 which they wouldn't otherwise have done if they knew the truth.

Mark Weston continues: "The second thing and probably more damning is that it is probably an outright fraud. There are a few fraud offences. One of them is called a Fraud by Representation. This means that if you dishonestly say anything that's untrue with the intent to make a gain, that's illegal". However, that is exactly what has been happening - repeatedly.

We wanted to see how Scott would react if he was caught red handed and so our undercover researcher made an appointment to view a property in Burnley with Scott. Again, Scott told Lisa that her name would go down on the property and that if anyone else saw the property he would tell them she had put her name down. Lisa then signed up to the property and handed over her money.

Just 20 minutes after Lisa left, our second prospective tenant, Steve, arrived, and duly received almost exactly the same spiel. However, Lisa, our first undercover researcher then returned, pretending that she had left something behind. Scott seemed desperate to keep the two would-be tenants apart.

Matt Allwright emerged just as it was getting a bit too awkward; Scott refused to speak to him but did return Lisa's £200 just before he drove off.

Of course, all of this can't be laid at the door of a single agent. Scott was working for the big boss, Brendan Kiely. Matt was invited to Brendan's home to have a chat. Brendan denied any wrong-doing. He claimed that anyone who is due a refund and/or have been treated unfairly by Brendan Kiely or any company associated with Kiely could feel free to come to 71-73 Long Street, Middleton and obtain a refund. He also said if anyone considers their property to be in a bad state of repair, write in or telephone and within seven days that property will be put back in good condition.

Brendan Kiely's since accused us of being biased and unfair and he denies fraud. However, he says the company's learned valuable lessons. He says while some employees made mistakes due to lack of training, any of those identified as working outside company policies have been removed. He also says the £200 fees - which he claimed were to cover processing costs - have been scrapped, to prevent further cases of abuse.

He's promised us a £400 refund and says he's also paid back monies taken in error from others.

Everest is one of the biggest names in home improvements, fitting windows, doors, kitchens and roofs. Everest is one company with lots of promises, guaranteeing the best materials and top quality workmanship, along with exacting standards and exceptional customer service, apparently delivering a perfect fit every time. But we've met some dissatisfied customers...

Jean Gillespie ordered her Everest conservatory back in December 2008 at a cost of nearly £33,000. Yet, almost as soon as it was installed, the roof started leaking. According to Jean, Everest has been out numerous times to fix it but unfortunately the roof still leaks.
Chartered Surveyor Barry Cross told Watchdog "The roof and the walls are moving because these bars have not been tightened up properly. Secondly where it is leaking, strip out all the trim, if necessary take the glass off, find where it's leaking put that right and put the glass back and put everything back to normal". Unfortunately, Jean has been left to deal with the mess.

Right now Everest is on a mission to transform Britain's homes, but as David Paget found out, change isn't always for the better. David agreed to pay Everest for improvements to his house in 2010, but now he can't even open his front door properly.

David is now left with a whole host of problems including wonky windows, cracked tiles, drill holes, damaged brickwork and mismatched handles. After complaining about these issues, Everest agreed to carry out remedial work, but when the problems persisted he lost confidence in their ability to complete the final part of the job and he felt he had no choice but to leave the house boarded up.

Barry Cross told Watchdog that "The workmanship is sloppy, there is no attention to the finishes and there are still significant defects here".

Despite the unhappy customers, Everest is busy looking for new ones. As well as running TV ads, it sponsored this year's Ideal Home Show. They have clear marketing promises, but to some customers, like Phil Baily, these promises sound hollow. Phil signed up for new windows and doors at a price of £23,500. Phil was left disappointed when Everest finished the late, and the surrounds he ordered were in the wrong colour. Worse still, the windows upstairs were deemed unsafe, which is not the best news when you have two small children. Everest have now fitted restrictors to the windows.

Barry Cross inspected the window and told us: "This window does not even comply with the most basic safety requirements. The window opens fully and you can see the height of the sill, this is so dangerous, for children particularly who can open the window and fall straight out."

So, poor workmanship, leaky roofs and unsafe fittings - all from the company that prides itself on being 'The Best'.
 

An Everest spokesperson said:

We have over 46 years' experience of delivering a high level of customer service and our commitment to high quality materials and workmanship hold as true as ever. We understand that sometimes a job may not go as smoothly as everyone would like, but where problems do arise, we have a 100% commitment to resolve them.

Our complaint process was followed in each of these cases, which included using independent bodies and/or Trading Standards to assess the claims, as per our standards. We do however recognise that these customers have not been satisfied by this approach and will review our processes accordingly.

We also constantly monitor our performance through our Customer Satisfaction Surveys and take every opportunity to improve our service based on our customers' feedback. This continual review of our service levels and processes are a central part of our business and we believe this is one of the key drivers in the improvement in our customer satisfaction rating over the last 2 years, as measured by Net Promoter Score.

In Mr Paget's case we agreed after the original installation that an error had been made regarding the door and offered to replace and upgrade it free of charge. An independent report has concluded that the other elements are minor snagging issues which are not unusual in a building job of this size and would be easily rectified. If Mr Paget allowed us to visit the site to replace the door and frame, we would also deal with these snags.

In the case of Mr Bailey's windows, this is the only complaint of this nature Everest has on record out of 4,790 identical orders. Notwithstanding this, we were committed to ensuring that the customer was satisfied and proposed a solution which was deemed reasonable by the local Trading Standards office, which included a significant discount as a gesture of goodwill. However, Mr Bailey has now demanded a 65% refund which we feel is completely disproportionate to the minor issues which have been raised and which we could quickly and easily rectify, if Mr Bailey allowed us access to the property.

In Ms Gillespie's case we carried out a variety of tests and repairs, including replacing the entire roof of the conservatory. An independent report confirmed the structure was sound, but identified the cause of a leak and recommended a solution, which we completed swiftly. We believed all issues had been resolved, and in fact, it was only when we asked for the outstanding balance to be paid that we were informed there was another issue. Since then we have been awaiting a date from the customer when we can go and carry out a further investigation.

We are totally committed to resolving these issues and have been asking to be given access to rectify them. We await the customers' instructions regarding this. If any Watchdog viewer has any query regarding an existing, current or potential Everest installation they can email us at watchdog@everest.co.uk

With premiums up by 17% on last year, insuring your car can be costly. The insurers say it's not their fault but Watchdog has discovered some of the biggest companies can offer existing customers cheaper deals... they just don't like telling them... Riz Lateef reports.

Has your renewal quote just landed on the mat? If so, you probably need a lie down on the bed. But what do you do after recovering from the shock? Curse the insurer, but resign yourself to paying up? That's what most of us do - but that'd be wrong. In fact, before agreeing to renew, we should check online because there may well be much cheaper deals to be had.

And believe it or not, some of those deals are available from your very own provider - the same company who's renewal quote has gone through the roof.

Andrew Wilkins received his renewal notice from More Th>n in February they wanted to charge him over £750. He decided he would do some of his own research on a price comparison website to get alternative quotes. The result? Andrew found that he could get his insurance cheaper, in fact one company quoted him just £512 for a whole years cover and the name of that company? More Th>n.

It turns out that the price that Andrew saw on the price comparison site with his own insurer was £250 less than they were asking Andrew to pay. With More Th>n claiming in their adverts that they guarantee to beat rival companies renewal deals, it would appear that in Andrew's case they were under cutting themselves. Andrew called More Th>n who were unable to offer an explanation but did offer him the insurance at the lower price.

Like other drivers who've contacted Watchdog, Andrew almost paid a penalty for being loyal to his insurer. The company never contacted him about the deal on offer to new customers - he only discovered it by accident. According to one recent report, around 8million people simply let their car insurance auto-renew, rather than look for a better deal.

Daniel Turner had been a loyal customer of Admiral, using them since 2010 to insure his two cars, at a cost of over £1000. But when he received his renewal letter earlier this year the premium had rocketed to £2000. Daniel searched online for cheaper quotes where to his amazement he found Admiral offering him the same insurance for just £961, over a £1000 less than his renewal quote. Admiral offered to price match Daniel's deal but again offered no explanation for their price ramp.

Other drivers who've contacted us aren't only shocked that they can get cheaper deals from their own provider simply by posing as new customers - they're baffled by some of the excuses given. Mark Marvao has been with Swiftcover.com for four years and his renewal has just increased by £100. But when he went to the company website and signed up as a new customer, he discovered he could get a much better deal. So how did Swiftcover explain it? When Mark phoned the company their rep on the phone didn't give a clear answer, but after consulting with his supervisor did tell Mark they could cancel his renewal and set up the new quote at the cheaper price.

An ABI spokesperson said:

Motor insurers are committed to giving all customers the best possible insurance deal. They value their existing policyholders and will look to attract new customers. Motor insurance is highly competitive and evidence shows that nearly three-quarters of customers shop around between insurers to get the best deal. When shopping around it is important to compare the cover between policies and not just the cost. For example, does a cheaper quote come with a higher policy excess (the first part of each claim that you pay yourself) and does your existing insurer offer any additional benefits, such as discounts on other insurances, that are of value to you. So the golden rule is to make sure that you buy the cover that best suits your needs.

A MoreThan spokesperson said:

Over the last few years, a number of factors have contributed to the rise in motor premiums such as bodily injury claims, uninsured driving and fraud. We fully acknowledge that the rising costs are a major issue and as a responsible insurer we are doing everything we can to tackle the causes behind them.

With reference to the difference in costs, we price according to the risk we're asked to insure and where some customers will see an increase in premium, others will see no impact at all. Like all insurance companies, we will offer competitive premiums to attract new customers.

Our customers are very important to us. We offer existing customers a range of special discounts and offers through MORE4ME, which we have negotiated exclusively for them. Customers who purchase multiple products are also able to take advantage of additional discounts.

An Admiral spokesperson said:

A renewal rate can be higher for a customer for a number of reasons, in this case it was an extreme increase and we are sorry that Mr Turner received this. The money a customer pays is based on detailed information we look at as a company and currently our new business and renewal customers are assessed independently. We are aware this has caused some problems and have been working on a change to our systems that will help resolve this problem.

The premium we charge each customer is calculated from a series of detailed statistical models which study the past claims experience for similar customers. The differences in premium we charge for different levels of any rating variable are a true reflection of the risk we take on as an insurance company.

In the customer's case, the difference between the renewal quote and new customer quote is because the process of setting a price is carried out independently between our new business customers compared to our renewal customers.

This means these two different groups of customers receive several independent rates based on their circumstances; as a result renewal rates differ to new business rates. Sometimes renewal rates will be lower than new business, and sometimes, as in this instance, they will be higher.

The renewal rate can be higher when a policyholder falls into several categories where, based on our past claims experience for similar customers, renewal terms are less favourable than those for new business. In a small proportion of cases, several small increases can come together to make a more significant rise in the overall premium. Having looked at the case in detail we can see this was the situation for Mr Turner.

The renewal documents any customer receives quote the renewal premium for the coming period of cover and ask the customer to contact us if they are not happy with the price and want to cancel the policy in order to take out cover elsewhere. As noted in your letter, when the customer called us we reviewed their case and arranged for the price of their cheaper internet quote to be applied to the existing Admiral policy.

Sarah Vaughan, Motor Director of Swiftcover, said:

Retaining customers is very important to us and we aim to provide policy holders with the most accurate renewal prices for their car insurance. On average premiums have increased across the industry which is due to a number of factors including uninsured drivers, fraud and personal injury claims.

It is important that customers looking for quotes from alternative sources use exactly the same details from their original quote, as this will have an impact on the price. Our pricing rates are continually refreshed; however we try to ensure consistency of prices at new business and renewal.

As a company we are putting a lot of investment into improving our customer retention so that we can offer loyal customers the best price possible. We are constantly looking at our process to improve our customers experience and ensure customers receive the most accurate quotes at the time of purchase. As part of this, we have recently changed a few elements of our question set for new business customers which will allow us to offer more accurate quotes. We will be rolling this out to renewal customers too, but in the meantime we are happy to deal with individual customers on a case by case basis.

Tesco; Talk-Talk; Harvey's. They're all packing their ads with small print and disclaimers and this doesn't impress Watchdog's resident grump Rick Wakeman...

It's bad enough having some television adverts interrupting your favourite programmes, but what makes it worse is seeing the get-out clauses that some of these ads use.
Take Sainsbury's - they have a promise to match the price of branded products that you can find cheaper elsewhere. They've been banging on about it for months, which is about as long as it takes to read the list of disclaimers. These disclaimers include:

• You have to spend at least £20
• It doesn't apply online
• It doesn't apply in Sainsbury's convenience stores
• It doesn't apply in Sainsbury's garages
• You have to price match across your whole basket of brands. Not just the ones that are cheaper elsewhere.

All this, and not to mention the hundreds of products that aren't included. Even after all of that, you can only claim a coupon with a maximum value of... £10.

Adverts in the newspapers use the same trick, and you also have to watch out for the dreaded asterisk. Take an advert for Talk Talk broadband. The 'half price' and the '£3.25' are in massive letters, but when you read the disclaimer you discover that it isn't £3.25, at least when you add on the £30 or £50 connection fee. Plus not to mention the £13.80 a month line rental... that comes with a massive 12 month contract.

Perhaps we have all become so used to seeing all this information that we don't bother to read it. We need to pay attention though, because it could be surprising. Take an advert from Harveys for example: if appears to offer massive discounts on sofas. But when you take a closer look, you discover that the supposedly "bargain" sale price of £699 is actually £100 more than the previous price on the screen (although there were two higher prices listed).

So we've had too much information - and "eyebrow-raising" information. A newer type of disclaimer concerns questionable market research. Want to know more? Ask the man from Del Monte. In one ad, he claimed that the majority of people like to say 'yes' to his orange juice, compared to the leading brand. But when you look at the small print, it reveals that this boast is based on a survey of only 144 respondents - 54% of whom preferred Del Monte. When you think about it, that means 46% didn't prefer it.

Rick suspects that most of these disclaimers are there to stop the companies getting into trouble with the advertising authorities for making misleading claims. It doesn't always work, though. Tesco fell foul of the authority with a press claim that their British iceberg lettuces go from farm to store within 24 hours. When challenged by the ASA that this might not be true, they said that it was "just puffery and doesn't need to be substantiated" and "the average consumer would take it to mean delivered quickly rather than within 24 hours". Well, why not just say that then?

A Sainsbury's spokesperson said:

"Millions of Sainsbury's customers benefit from Brand Match vouchers in our stores every week and they tell us they like the scheme and understand how it works. "The end of shopping around" is a headline in some of our adverts and invites people to find out more, with an immediate and clear explanation that we compare prices so that our customers won't pay more for their basket of comparable brands than at Asda and Tesco, and they will instantly receive a coupon for the difference at the till. To avoid customer disappointment we state where there are exclusions and a small number of stores where we are unable to offer Brand Match are detailed on our website."

A Harveys spokesperson said:

Harveys always endeavours to be both clear and transparent with the promotion of its offers to customers and also to comply with relevant regulations regarding the promotion of offers and price reductions. Harveys has to display price trails in full for a product to ensure that it fully complies with such regulations regardless of whether prices go up or down. This particular product was previously sold at one lower price as well as at two higher prices than the price given at the time of the advert hence the reason why a full price trail for the product meant that all these prices had to be displayed.

A Talk Talk spokesperson said:

A TalkTalk spokesperson said: "BT, BSkyB, Virgin and TalkTalk all advertise the cost of phone and broadband subscriptions separately from monthly line rental and connection charges. We make all of the charges very clear when customers sign up, they are contained within all the promotional material, and we are committed to offering the best value on the market, with no hidden charges."

A Tesco spokesperson said:

"The disclaimer was used to ensure customers understood that in rare and unforeseen circumstances the product may not arrive into our stores as quickly as normal. We know our customers value freshness and our intention was to highlight the fact that our lettuces go from farm to store within 24 hours, and that it is therefore possible for our customers to buy and eat a lettuce within 24 hours of it leaving the farm."

The British Parking Association (or BPA) represents private parking companies in the UK. Under the current rules, only companies who are members can buy driver's details from the DVLA, which lets them chase motorists for extortionate charges.

To gain membership, companies have to agree to follow the BPA's Code of Practice, but we've previously seen how the BPA has failed to take action against companies that have breached the code, or even the law. But how would they react if a parking company failed to take action following a judge's ruling? Excel Parking Services Ltd have done just that.

A BPA-approved operator since 1994, Excel operate a car park at the popular Peel retail centre in Stockport. It was here that motorist Martin Cutts parked in March 2010. Martin told us that he thought it would be free to park there, since he believed most big shopping centres didn't charge for their parking. He was quite surprised to get back to his car and find a £100 parking ticket on the windscreen.

The average drive may have just paid up, but Martin was no average driver. As managing director of the Plain Language Commission, his job is to campaign for clear wording and simple language, and he's a bit of an expert when it comes to signs. The BPA Code of Practice states that car park signs must be clear and visible - so that drivers have a chance to understand the terms and charges that apply.

Martin investigated, and found the sign at the entrance to the car park. While it does state that the car park is pay and display, the lettering is just 13mm high and sandwiched amongst many other lines of text. He felt that when driving past at 10mph, you couldn't be expected to read it. When he appealed Excel rejected it, and when he refused to pay again, they took him to court - and lost.

The judge visited the car park herself and agreed that there weren't clear signs to warn drivers that they needed to pay & display, dismissing Excel's claim and ordering the company to pay Martin's expenses

As a BPA-approved operator, Excel is supposed to be one of the most professional and reputable companies in the business, but nothing was done by either the BPA or Excel to make sure the same thing couldn't happen again and the signs have remained exactly the same.

So, what's going on? Well, Excel's Managing Director, Simon Renshaw-Smith described the court ruling as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and he made some pretty rude remarks about the judge too, describing her as "not fit to serve the civil courts".

The BPA said that because the 13mm wording does not break the Code of Practice rules on clarity and visibility, rules which are drawn up by BPA Approved Operator board members... one of whom is Simon Renshaw-Smith, Managing Director of Excel Parking Services Ltd.

In the three years from 2008 to 2011 Excel issued a total of 11,498 parking tickets to drivers who had parked at the Peel Centre car park without paying and displaying. But, by comparison, this council car park in the centre of town, similar in size to the Peel centre, but with pay and display nine times larger, issued only 3000 tickets for not paying and displaying in the same time.

The lettering is nine times smaller, the number of tickets issued is nearly four time higher, yet the BPA are happy for Excel's signs to stay just as they are as the don't break the rules of the code. The BPA says its Code of Practice sets the standard for the private parking industry.

But with rules that allow signs like these, isn't it time to raise the standards, BPA?

A spokesperson from Excel said:

Q1) Why has Excel decided not to change the signs in the Peel Centre Car Park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?

A1) The said court case is one isolated incident that fell in Cutts' favour. We strongly believe that Deputy District Judge's decision was a grave error of judgement. In support of this view, we should point out that the Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking adherence. A compliance rate of this magnitude clearly supports our position. It should also be noted that we have secured many court judgements in Excel Parking's favour. The judgment creates no precedent.

Also, to further elaborate on examples from contractual law, would you not think it fair to state that to be in charge of a motor vehicle you must be of sound mind and have the benefit of reasonable eyesight? You are therefore expected to acknowledge and adhere to public information signs/notices. Ignorance is no excuse in English Law.

A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication the motorist enters into a contract with the parking enforcement company (or the landowner) and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to park. The decision by the Court of Appeal has confirmed that provided that adequate notice of the consequences of illegal parking is given, the person parking accepts the terms as set in the notice and therefore consents to the risks and consequences.

For your reference below please review a 'summing up' example from case law in terms of signage.

• Vine v Waltham LBC [2000] EG 13 May 142 the Court of Appeal

In this particular case it was found that the Plaintiff (Vine) did not consent to have her vehicle wheel clamped. In Mrs Vine's evidence she stated that she had not seen the warning sign on the wall. It had been hidden from her view by a large 4x4 Range Rover parked in the adjoining parking space.

The points to be drawn from this case however, are firstly, if prominent signs had been displayed warning the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions, then Mrs Vine would NOT have been successful in her claim. The sign(s) should be displayed in such a way that a motorist could and indeed should have seen the sign(s). Even if the motorist claims they did not see the sign(s) he/she will be bound by the terms stated therein.

The second point is that the charge to be paid must not be extortionate. In this particular case the Court of Appeal regarded the fee of £105 as reasonable.

For further clarity in terms of signage for the site, please find below for your reference the quantity and type.

Warning Signs & Equipment Present at the Peel Centre, Stockport

Entrance Sign: 4 No. 1500mm x 792mm
Repeater Sign: 29 No. 1220mm x 660mm
Tariff Board: 17 No. 1200mm x 1000mm
Pay Here Cones: 14 No. 605mm x 460mm
Disabled Pay at Machine Sign: 28 No. 300mm x 150mm
Pay & Display Machines: 14 No.

The Code of Practice states that signs must be at least 450mm x 450mm. With the former in mind would you not agree we not only adhere to, but exceed signage standards?

To offer you further insight into the layout of the Car Park, I would refer you to the attached photographs that clearly show signage throughout the site. To confirm, the majority of the signs are back to back (double sided) in order that they can be clearly seen from all areas/angles of the car park. Furthermore, Mr Cutts attended the Peel Centre with his 13 year old son, thus one would have expected them to take the safest and most direct route to their chosen retailer, JJB Sports. I have attached a photograph highlighting this route, which passes over three Zebra Crossings and takes you within a foot of a P&D Machine and accompanying back to back tariff sign.

To conclude this question, the Parking Industry, as with many other industry sectors, are often advised or offered guidance in terms of Best Practice via their respective governing or advisory Bodies. Such Forums are made up from members and stakeholders from outside of their specific sector i.e. consumer groups, motoring organisations and legal representatives, thus allowing for greater opportunities to share best practice and development for the sector in question. This is the case with the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme and the Code of Practice.

As such, when you then consider that the BPA, the Police's own association with the 'Park Mark', the Safer Parking Scheme Award, which the Peel Centre is proud to have achieved, as well as 99.6% of our customers at the Peel Centre acknowledging the signage in situ, clearly this confirms that the site is known as a Pay & Display car park. It is for these reasons the signage remains the same.

Q2) What assurances can Excel give to motorists that the company is committed to providing clear information to motorists, given the revenue generated from this one car park alone and the decision not to alter the signs?

A2) The Peel Centre benefits from 99.6% parking compliance. Such a high compliance rate delivers unquestionable assurance to our customers. There are 14 highly prominent Pay & Display machines, supported by 'Tariff Boards' and 'Pay Here' signs. In total the car park benefits from 92 'Customer Information' signs.

Excel Parking Services have been members of the BPA for over 17 years. We have also actively contributed to enhancing Best Practice within the industry throughout the whole of this time. We have also been instrumental in bringing about improvements to the private parking sector and will continue to call for further action and development of legislation resulting in definitive improvements for the industry as a whole.

Q3) How does Excel respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?

A3) As previously outlined above, we as a business are totally committed to the goals set out within the Code of Practice, and we will continue to work closely with the BPA to bring about an improved experience for consumers and operators alike as our industry evolves. The Code of Practice is extremely consumer focused, and with stringent independent annual audits, we are confident that consumers receive a high degree of protection. Accordingly, we will continue to encourage changes in legislation bringing about greater transparency for all parties.

We would also like to state for the record that we fully support, and welcome, the introduction of an Independent Appeals Service that will come in to effect via the impending changes brought about by the Protection of Freedoms Bill from October 2012.

A British Parking Association (BPA) spokesperson said:

1. Why has the BPA decided that Excel does not need to change the signs in the Peel Centre car park, despite the ruling in the Cutts case?

The BPA has not required Excel's signs to be changed because they remain compliant with our Code of Practice. While the case involving Mr Cutts was noted by our compliance team, numerous similar court cases, not reported on by Watchdog, have found in favour of Excel, in which Judges have determined that signage is comprehensive and visible.

This inconsistency represents a problem for the BPA since we cannot change the regulation for the sector every time such a decision is made. We must therefore use all the information and context available to us to make the Code of Practice as pragmatic and as effective as possible.

2. Why does the BPA believe that these signs meet the AOS Code of Practice, despite motorists clearly not finding the information clear and visible?

We do not accept that motorists are 'not finding the information clear and visible'. During the period in question almost 2.9 million motorists followed the instructions on the signs at the Peel Centre in Stockport without difficulty - a compliance rate of 99.63%.

Nevertheless, the signs used by Excel have been fully checked by BPA's compliance team on a visit to the site, who have confirmed that they do not breach our Code of Practice.

3. What assurances can the BPA give to motorists that both the BPA and its member companies are committed to providing clear information to motorists, despite the decision not to change the car parks signs detailed above - and given the revenue generated from car parks such as this?

The BPA's Code of Practice exists solely to improve standards in the private parking industry, and therefore, to protect motorists. We review it regularly, in close consultation with bodies including; The AA, The RAC Foundation, The Citizens Advice Bureau, Consumer Focus, The Office of Fair Trading, Disabled Motoring UK, and a number of others.

The Code of Practice will be comprehensively reviewed this summer and we do intend to look closely at the clauses relating to signage.

We are currently working on the design and implementation of an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for motorists ticketed on private land, which we have campaigned tirelessly for over the last decade and which the Government has finally sanctioned.
We have done everything in our power to ensure that the motorist is protected from rogue parking operators but unfortunately, the BPA simply does not have the authority to regulate the private parking industry any further than it already does.

4. How does the BPA respond to the suggestion that AOS Code of Practice is neither robust enough nor enforced effectively enough to protect motorists?

The AOS was created in 2007 in the absence of any other effective regulation of the Private Parking Industry. As such, it is still developing and improving.

We now have a robust Sanctions Scheme where, if members are found to be in breach of the Code, sanctions points are awarded which can eventually result in expulsion. Currently, 29 members have sanction points on their record and five members have been expelled from the Scheme.

We have a dedicated Compliance Manager and have conducted over 2000 investigations into member behaviour last year following complaints from the public.

However, we believe that our Approved Operator Scheme is no substitute for legislation which regulates the sector. We have campaigned for many years for the Government to fully regulate private parking operators so that those who are currently not answerable to any authority can be held to account. A robust regulatory framework enshrined in law is the fairest and most effective way to achieve this but the Government have consistently refused to take this important step to protect motorists.

Kent-based John Ovenell offers his customers "Cheap and Cheerful Clearance" of their waste. But despite charging what could be considered reasonable prices, his services haven't left everyone so cheerful.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Kaloyan Todorov paid John Ovenell to pick up some rubbish. He thought it had been taken care of until Kent County Council called him up to tell him that they had found his waste flytipped on the side of the road.

Not only was the rubbish a blight on the landscape in that area, it could have had landed Mr Todorov in court. Under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act, everyone has a responsibility for ensuring that their own waste is deposited at an authorised site. Last year, Swale Borough Council in Kent prosecuted three people whose rubbish ended up in the wrong place. Luckily, the council didn't pursue matters with Mr. Todorov, as he could prove that he had paid to have his waste disposed of by someone who he thought was authorised to do so.

Of course, the greater responsibility lies with the fly-tipper. Leaving waste on any land without an environmental permit can lead to a fine of up to £50,000 or imprisonment.
But this didn't seem to have been on John Ovenell's mind when he dealt with Rogue Trader's rubbish.

We called him out to a house in Kent, where our homeowner Nicki was waiting with a standard pile of household waste, including a mattress, a sofa and a desk. To make absolutely certain we could identify our waste after we collected it, we sprayed it with a special UV spray and added a few distinctive pieces from the Rogue Trader's props cupboard, such as a red wig and a pair of "Dimbleby" pants. We also added a tracking device to the pile to help us monitor the progress of the waste.

While John was collecting the rubbish at the house, he warned Nicki not to throw away any letters or bank statements as her details could be used by identity fraudsters. But he also must have known that if the council were to find the waste fly tipped, any details in the rubbish identifying her could lead investigators back to him.

John also told Nicki that he would sort out the rubbish before putting it in skips and bins. For example, he told her that he would take some of the bricks he had previously collected to Bexley tip. This would be good practice, but unfortunately it turned out not to be true.

At around 4am on the following day, he was tracked by our team to a spot near Meopham, Kent where he dumped a mixture of our waste and someone else's on the roadside. The rubbish damaged a nearby gate to an apple orchard and made it impossible for anyone to drive through the entrance into the field.

To check whether this act of fly-tipping was a one-off, we called him out to another house to pick up more household waste. This time, he told our homeowner an anecdote about people frequently asking for his waste carrier licence. He implied that he had a licence, but this turned out not to be true. He doesn't have a waste carrier's licence, so it is illegal for him to charge to pick up customer's rubbish.

Just like the first time, he failed to take the rubbish to a tip. Our team followed him from Kent to Esher in Surrey, where at 1.20am he fly-tipped our rubbish next to a Rugby Club.

We then confronted John Ovenell with our allegations, namely that he had been breaking the law by charging customers for waste disposal without holding a waste-carrier's licence, and by leaving the rubbish in unauthorised places. He responded by flatly denying fly-tipping. He admitted he doesn't have a waste carrier's license but does have the form to apply for one. He apologised to us, and to the farmer and said he's not going to collect waste anymore, not even for £1,000. As a gesture, he picked up the rubbish from Esher and deposited it back at the rented house which we had called him out to. He threatened to sue us if we ever put him on television. Presumably, this episode of Rogue Traders will not make him very cheerful.

The PIP breast implant scandal saw 47,000 British women affected. All the women were fitted with silicone implants containing industrial grade chemicals never intended for medical use. In December, the French government recommended their removal due to increasing evidence they could rupture. Women in France can get the procedure for free but the NHS and private clinics in the UK will only remove implants if it is deemed clinically necessary.

What's worse is that as the company that made the silicone has gone out of business, they've been unable to get refunds on their surgery. But could that be about to change? Martin Lewis reports.

Rachel Oates had her left breast partially removed after developing cancer in 1999. In 2004 she opted for reconstructive surgery, costing nearly £6000. Her surgeon used Poly Implant Prothese - or PIP - implants. Seven years on, she discovered those same implants contained a gel not intended for the human body, but rather for use in mattresses. Rachel contacted the clinic who carried out her surgery as she desperately wanted the implants removed and replaced, but she was told they could not help her, leaving her no choice but to pay to have the procedure done again. Rachel was too late to stop the implants leaking inside her body. When doctors came to remove them, they found a hole the size of a golf ball. They'd already ruptured.

Like thousands of PIP patients, Rachel has a strong claim, but the chances of patients recovering their money have looked slim. Although the law says a supplier is responsible if it sells you a faulty product, the manufacturer in this case has gone out of business. And as the implants were approved as safe by the EU, the clinics that fitted them have argued that they did nothing wrong.

Martin Lewis looks at this as not a health issue but as a consumer rights issue, and has tried to ascertain whether the laws that apply to any purchase can bring hope. The answer is that there is a new avenue to try if they paid on their credit card. One woman in the Midlands tried to claim the entire cost of her surgery from Lloyds TSB because under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if you buy something over £100 and pay for any of it on a credit card, the card company is jointly liable if anything goes wrong with the product. Last month her claim was successful and Lloyds TSB paid out £3,700.

Now this doesn't set a precedent and it needs to be understood that usually if it is has been over six years since you made your purchase you can't claim. So for women whose implants were fitted before 2006, the deadline has technically passed. But, because of the circumstances of this scandal, they still may have a case.

Consumer Lawyer Dean Dunham says, "The general rule is that you have to bring a claim within 6 years however there is an exception and that exception does apply in the case of the PIP cases- if you have suffered a personal injury you can claim within the last three years from when you had knowledge of the injury. Now we all know in the case of PIP that it only really came to public knowledge within the last two years and that means we are well within the three year period."

For Debbie Brewer, it's more clear cut. Her implants cost £4275 and, like Rachel's, they leaked. She had pain in her left breast for over a year and after a scan she was told that she has gel oozing out of her implants. She feels the implants are not fit for purpose and she should get her money back. That leak means that Debbie has a much stronger case when it comes to proving her implants were faulty. Crucially, she underwent her surgery three years ago in 2009 and she paid for it on her credit card.

Of the 47,000 British women who received PIP implants, nearly 500 are believed to have suffered a rupture. But many whose implants remain intact also want them removed in case they burst at some point in the future.

Melanie Schilling has already gone with removal and replacement surgery in January as she wasn't prepared to take the risk to her health of them rupturing. Melanie's implants may still be in one piece but as she paid more than £300 for them by credit card, does she have a case for getting her money back? Dean says that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 it says that those implants must be of satisfactory quality and as the implants are made from industrial standard silicone rather than medical, it means that they are not satisfactory quality and there is a breach of contract which means she can make a claim against the credit card company under Section 75 or the clinic.

A LLoyds TSB spokesperson said:

"One of the advantages of using a credit card to pay for goods and services is that consumers can make a Section 75 claim if there has been a misrepresentation or breach of contract, providing the cost is above £100 and less than £30,000. This can be the case whether they have purchased a holiday, electrical goods or plastic surgery among other things. Every Section 75 claim is different and each one will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

"We have received a small number of s75 claims from customers who have been affected by faulty PIP implants in the past few months. We always try to do the best for all of our customers and each case has been or will be assessed on their individual circumstances. We cannot disclose how many claims have resulted in a refund."

A Barclaycard spokesperson said:

Barclaycard has been in contact with Rachel to discuss the details of the case with her. Our advice to any viewers who maybe in a similar position to Rachel is get in touch with us at the earliest opportunity so we can review their case and give guidance on the claims process.

Barclaycard takes its obligations under Section 75 seriously and reviews all claims from customers on a case by case basis.

A Nationwide spokesperson said:

"The option of claiming a refund via Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act of 1975 is open to all customers. However, we will investigate each case on its own merits taking into account the individual circumstances of each customer.

"In terms of Mrs Brewer, we have already had initial contact with her after she requested copies of her credit card statements, which we have provided. If she wishes to pursue a claim, we would be more than happy to look at the case in detail."

A Capital One spokesperson said:

1. Has Capital One received any applications for refunds from people who have paid for the fitting of PIP implants on their credit cards? If so, how many and have any people been issued with refunds to date?

We have had enquiries from three customers who have had PIP implants.

In each case we have asked the customer to talk to their GP in the first instance to seek medical advice on whether they should have their implants removed or replaced.

If they are deemed to be at risk by a medical professional, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

As yet, none of our customers have had this advice and so we have not provided any refunds for PIP implants to date.

2. Would Capital One consider granting a refund to the specific case study outlined above?

All Section 75 claims are assessed on a case by case basis - it is difficult to make a decision in Melanie's case based on the information that has currently been provided. However, we will be contacting her to discuss her case in more detail and will do what we can to support her claim.

3. Would Capital One consider granting refunds for those people who have had PIP implants fitted and have paid on their Capital One credit card?

We assess all Section 75 claims on a case by case basis. We would ask any customer who has had PIP implants to talk to their GP in the first instance to seek medical advice on whether they should have their implants removed or replaced. If they are deemed to be at risk by a medical professional, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

4. Would Capital One accept that anyone with the implants would have grounds for a refund for their credit card payments given the evidence that the implants are faulty, even if they have not ruptured?

The latest guidance from the NHS states "there is no clear evidence at present that patients with a PIP implant are at greater risk of harm than those with other implants". The NHS has also confirmed that they "agree with the MHRA advice that there is no specific safety concern identified which requires a recommendation of routine removal of PIP implants."

However, we assess all Section 75 claims individually and if a customer receives medical advice that they should have their PIP implants removed or replaced, regardless of whether they had ruptured, then we would consider their claim and whether we should cover their costs for corrective surgery.

We would always ask a customer to seek medical advice in the first instance though to check that corrective surgery is the right thing for them in their individual circumstances.

5. Would Capital One consider granting refunds to those people who have had the implants fitted more than six years ago, but who have only been made aware recently that the implants are not fit for purpose and could be faulty?

We assess all Section 75 claims on a case by case basis, but given that the problems with PIP implants have only come to light over the past 24 months, we do not believe that anyone will be outside the six year limitation period at this time. We would therefore consider a claim even if the original surgery was more than six years ago. However, we would always ask a customer to seek medical advice in the first instance to check that corrective surgery is the right thing for them in their individual circumstances.

British Gas is the leading energy provider in the UK and was the first provider to cut domestic electricity bills by 5% this year. But, when it comes to servicing your boiler it's also number one for complaints about overcharging and needless work. Chris Hollins reports...

British Gas adverts tell customers that they will come to their rescue when boiler breakdowns occur. It's a reassuring message and British Gas promise to offer top quality service, peace of mind and - most importantly - no surprises when it comes to your bills.

But do those promises match the reality? Watchdog has heard from a number of British Gas customers who claim differently. Chris and expert plumber Mike Griffin went to meet them.

First they met Lois Brown, who's been with British Gas for 38 years, paying £18.85 a month on her homecare plan. Lois' boiler was working fine - until it started making strange noises the morning after its last service. A British Gas engineer came back to replace a pipe - and to deliver some shocking news. The day after the service Lois was told that her boiler could go on for another five years or it could go tomorrow which meant that she needed a new boiler. Lois was told it could be costly and it was: British Gas quoted more than £3600 for a new boiler. Lois was so shocked she called a local plumber - who gave a different diagnosis - and a very different price. She was told that the cause of her problems was the thermostat control and that it would cost £97 to fix.

Lois' boiler which has been working fine ever since the minor repair. Mike Griffin conducted an overall visual check on the boiler and checked to make sure it was performing safely and cleanly. He concluded that there was no reason for British Gas to tell Lois that she needed a new boiler.
Now, we all make mistakes, and identifying the wrong fault is not unheard of. But claiming a part is obsolete when it's not? That is unusual. Ask Gareth and Julie Ann. They were Homecare customers too, so when their boiler developed a fault, a British Gas engineer called round to check the boiler. However, he told them that the parts were obsolete, so the boiler would need to be replaced, and the cost of a new boiler would be £2800. On getting a second opinion they discovered that all the boiler needed to get it back up and running was a new gas valve, which could be fitted for £70. Mike's verdict? "The gas valve has been changed, it's a replacement, it's freely available and it's working properly and it's within the safety requirement so I don't see any reason to change this boiler."

Misdiagnosing, claiming parts are obsolete when they're readily available? Could it get any worse? Well yes, you see British Gas condemned Dorian Sibley's boiler even when it was in fine working order. A British Gas Engineer told Dorian during an annual service that the flue was corroded and as the parts were obsolete, Dorian would need a new boiler. Not only did British Gas condemn Dorian's boiler but the engineer also dismantled the boiler, placing parts in the bin. Luckily, Dorian got in contact with a local plumber who discovered that the so called obsolete part was available and that the old part didn't even need replacing.

Mike's verdict on Dorian's boiler was that the condition of the flue that British Gas had taken out did have some corrosion on it but not enough that it would allow flue gases to leak out of it and that there's no good reason to condemn the boiler and change it for a new one. It could have just been cleaned up, re-sealed and put back together.

And British Gas did eventually put it back together again but only after Dorian confronted them with the plumber's findings.

Chris Jansen from British Gas said:

We were clearly very disappointed to receive the three customer complaints passed to us by Watchdog. At British Gas, we work hard to do the best possible job for all our customers, and we maintain a relentless focus on customer safety.

We have carefully reviewed the cases of Mrs Brown, Mr Sibley and Mr & Mrs Hughes and believe that we acted with the best of intentions, and with these customers' interests in mind.

We made a mistake when we incorrectly advised that parts were obsolete when, in fact, they are still available. This was a genuine error on our part and we apologise for this. However, we stand by our advice that the boilers in question are at the end of their life and will become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain.

We repair 99 per cent of all breakdowns that we attend. Any recommendations we make to install a new boiler or undertake a repair take into account a range of factors including: safety; manufacturer guidance on the availability of spare parts; the age and efficiency of the existing boiler; and the likelihood of recurring breakdowns.

The three customers featured have boilers that are at least 22, 21 and 14 years old respectively. On every occasion, we reflected the manufacturer's guidance in the advice we gave.

Our 8,000 engineers are at the heart of British Gas. We are proud of these men and women, who have real expertise and who have been with our company for an average of 20 years. Their job is to get to a customer as quickly as possible and try to fix the problem on the first visit - we do this in the vast majority of cases.

At British Gas, we work 365 days a year and visit over seven million homes annually. Our objective is simply to do a great job for our customers. While we strive to please every customer we don't always achieve this. On the rare occasion where there is a disagreement we do all that we can to resolve the matter in our customers' favour.

If any customer has a concern about the advice or service they have received from British Gas then they should e-mail me at chris.jansen@britishgas.co.uk and I will respond personally.