- 6 giờ trước
Rip off Britain - Season 17 Episode 17 -
£1,000 to send a parcel
£1,000 to send a parcel
Danh mục
😹
Vui nhộnPhụ đề
00:00Today, hysending a parcel just like this one cost one man more than £1,000 in fees
00:07because the delivery firm said that he got the measurements wrong.
00:10The fact that someone could just take that sum of money out of your account without you being notified,
00:16it almost felt like theft.
00:19Plus, the small business whose van got trapped in a car park for more than two and a half years.
00:25It's affected us emotionally and it's stopped us from moving the business forward as we would have liked to have.
00:33The fallout has cost them more than £45,000 they worry they may never get back.
00:38Helping you avoid expensive surprises, this is Rip Off Britain.
00:43Hello and welcome to Rip Off Britain where today our team here in Salford has been investigating your reports of unwelcome surprises
00:58which have really hit you hard in the pocket.
01:00Including the faulty set of headphones that haven't worked properly since they came out of the box.
01:05With the retailer refusing a refund, the experts in our advice clinic are here to see if they can help one man get his money back.
01:13I said this is not good enough. I deserve a full refund for these headphones that I can't trust and they don't work.
01:19Plus, how much can you ever trust what is written on social media?
01:23With Facebook's parent company bringing an end to some formal fact checks,
01:28we've got the tricks that will help you tell the facts from the fakes.
01:32But first today, it's the reality of the way that many of us pay for things these days.
01:36That a lot of companies have our bank details on record.
01:39And somewhere down the line, we've agreed to terms and conditions that allow those companies to charge our bank accounts without explicitly asking us first.
01:48It's really useful when it comes to paying subscriptions and that kind of thing.
01:52But when you're not expecting the money to leave your account, that can sting.
01:56The surprise charges at the centre of our first film today are particularly breathtaking.
02:01What started as a £35 debit card payment to send a parcel led to more than £1,000 being debited from one man's bank account.
02:10There have never been more ways to send a parcel. Forget queuing at the post office. Nowadays, you don't even need to leave your own home.
02:20For busy company director George from Essex, this is a godsend. In January 2025, he needed to return some vinyl flooring that he bought online that wasn't quite right.
02:33I'm currently in a rented property and the handyman said we need to rip up the existing vinyl in the hallway. So it just wasn't practical.
02:42George knew he'd take a hit on the cost of returning the flooring. And so when the seller recommended that he look at a website called Parcel Hero, where he could compare the prices of various courier firms, he went ahead.
02:56The weight was 5.5 kgs. The length was 205 cm. The width was 11 cm. And the height was 11 cm.
03:08As instructed, George carefully weighed and measured the package and entered the details into the Parcel Hero website. It came up with a number of quotes, including one from UPS.
03:20At £35.65, it was almost half the original price of the flooring. But George swallowed the cost.
03:28The £35.65 came out of my account. And then they came and collected the parcel within 24, 48 hours, I think. One thing off my mind can focus on my day.
03:40But a week later, George received an email from Parcel Hero.
03:46We're sorry to inform you that UPS has audited your shipment and found that the weight or dimensions you provided to us was inaccurate, and this has affected the cost of your shipment.
03:58The email didn't say how much extra he'd been charged, so George checked with his bank.
04:04I was like, whoa. It was a bit of a shock to the system.
04:091157.95 came out of my account.
04:13Yes, £1,157.95 had been debited by Parcel Hero.
04:22I just thought it was preposterous and left me very shocked. I just thought it must be a mistake.
04:29And it wasn't just the amount that shocked George.
04:32The fact that someone could just take that sum of money out of your account without you being notified just came straight out. So it almost felt like theft.
04:44George complained to Parcel Hero, but the company stood firm. It told him that the measurements of his parcel were much larger than those he had submitted.
04:53Knowing he'd used the same packaging to return the flooring as it had been delivered in, he contacted the seller to ask for the dimensions on that original package.
05:03I provided the screenshot from the seller outlining the dimensions which were 205, 11, 11 and a weight of 5.5 kg.
05:12I then got an invoice from the seller which outlined that it cost him £11.69 to send the parcel to me.
05:21So I was like, how on earth is it costing me over £1,000 to send the same item back to him?
05:28But that wasn't enough. Parcel Hero asked for photographic proof of the dimensions.
05:34So George got back onto the seller, who sent photos of an identical product all packaged up, but still no joy.
05:44I feel I've provided a huge amount of evidence with my dialogue with the seller, so I really don't know what to do next.
05:52With George feeling boxed into a corner, he wrote to us.
05:56Little did he know that we had heard similar tales from other customers of Parcel Hero, as well as its sister company Parcel Compare,
06:05including furniture upcycler Fiona Roberts from Surrey.
06:10She often sends bulky packages abroad.
06:13I know the importance of getting the dimensions right.
06:16I know the importance of the measurements being correct, because I know there are repercussions if it's not correct.
06:23In January 2025, she needed to dispatch a projector she'd sold online and even took photos of the packaged measurements.
06:32Using the Parcel Compare website, she selected UPS as a courier, paid £43.75 and sent the parcel on its way.
06:41But a week later, she received a notification from her bank saying she'd been charged £174.52.
06:51That was followed by an email from Parcel Compare with an invoice attached.
06:57They've put here large parcel surcharge, they've put weight adjustment, but I'm not sure why they've done this.
07:03It just doesn't make sense to me. It's just really confusing why they've done this.
07:08Fiona was adamant that she hadn't underestimated the size and weight of her parcel.
07:15So she went back to Parcel Compare with the photos she'd taken before she'd shipped it.
07:20But the firm said that because the packing label wasn't visible in the pictures,
07:24it couldn't be sure that the photos were of the correct item.
07:28Fiona also went to her bank, astonished that Parcel Compare was just able to take more from her account without notifying her.
07:35But it pointed out the company's T's and C's, stating it can do just that.
07:42I'm a hard-working person, and them dipping into my hard-earned money and just helping themselves, I feel mugged, I feel robbed.
07:51And it's those same T's and C's that George has come up against.
07:57Because Parcel Hero, the company he used, has the same T's and C's as its sister company, Parcel Compare.
08:05Unable to provide the proof Parcel Hero required, he's currently over £1,000 out of pocket.
08:11I feel more than aggrieved with Parcel Hero. Anxiety at the beginning and then anger, frustration.
08:19I've done everything in my power to try and resolve it amicably, but alas, no positive result.
08:25Ah, poor George. Well, time for me to unpack all that, with the help of consumer rights brain box Martin James, and one of our producers Katie Saatchi, who's been investigating those incredible extra charges.
08:42Katie, I suppose the big question has to be how on earth George has ended up being charged an additional fee of more than £1,000?
08:50Well, if I'm speaking to Parcel Hero, it seems that it was all due to the length of the parcel.
08:57George measured it and says that it was 205 centimetres.
09:01But when it got to UPS and they took their own measurements, they told Parcel Hero that it was 277 centimetres.
09:09And that triggered another chain of events because 277 is higher than the maximum limit that UPS will carry, and that incurs significant extra costs.
09:19So I can show you on Parcel Hero's website that the UPS penalty fee there at the bottom for exceeding the maximum limit is more than £800.
09:30That is a huge amount, isn't it? So how come, in Fiona's case, the surcharge was much smaller?
09:37Well, it was £174, so still a considerable amount to be charged without any warning.
09:45But Parcel Compare, which is Parcel Hero's sister company, again said that the measurements of the parcel seemed to be bigger than Fiona had entered on the website.
09:54So from her calculations and photos, it was measuring at 234 by 13 by 13 centimetres.
10:03And she said that she actually inputted slightly larger dimensions.
10:07But when it was measured by UPS's own calibrated equipment, it was found to be 240 by 19 by 15 centimetres.
10:15That means it's classed as a large package and costs more to send.
10:20And we asked for evidence of UPS's measurements for both Fiona and George's parcels, but neither Parcel Hero, Parcel Compare or UPS could provide those.
10:30My head is already spinning and we're only at the foothills of this, but who's actually levying these charges?
10:37Is it the parcel comparison sites or is it the courier?
10:39It's the courier, so UPS in this case.
10:42And it told us that its surcharges reflect the additional cost of handling outsized items to make sure, among other things, that its staff are safe
10:52and that all packages can move through its network safely. And that network is mostly automated.
10:57I suppose that's understandable. But Martin, why is it that Parcel Compare and Parcel Hero were able to charge Fiona and George without warning?
11:06Well, I'm not entirely convinced that they can, to be honest, Julia.
11:09Whilst it's true that a company can charge you additional fees and charges if you agree to do so, clearly under these circumstances, George wasn't aware of how much this was going to be.
11:19Now, if the money is taken from your account without authorisation, according to the banking rules, then you can dispute that.
11:25And I've spoken to the Financial Conduct Authority about this, and they've said that even if the company had made it clear that fees were possible,
11:33it may still be possible to actually appeal through your bank because of the size of the fees themselves.
11:39Now, we have to be fair to the business. It does say on their website, as we can see here, that they reserve the right to automatically take payment for additional charges.
11:49And that's precisely what they've done. But my view is the charges are so big that no one in their right mind would authorise those.
11:56It's a ludicrous amount of money. I mean, you could buy, in George's parcel, a ticket to pretty much any European destination on a plane.
12:02It could have a whale of a time and it would have been cheaper.
12:05Interesting. Well, Katie, have we heard about this kind of situation with other delivery firms or parcel comparison sites?
12:12Yes, we have. And it's important to note that Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare are not the only ones whose terms and conditions allow them to charge your card extra without asking you first.
12:22We checked some of their main competitors and two of them have similar clauses. By contrast, Interparcel specifies that for any amount that's more than £30, it will send you an invoice asking for payment.
12:36You can either pay that or you've got seven days to dispute it by sending in evidence.
12:41But whichever firm you choose to send a parcel, taking photos of it before you do so is key to making sure that you can argue the toss over any extra charges you may incur.
12:53But getting those shots just right isn't easy, as Martin is about to find out.
12:59I brought my tape measure with me, so we've got the handy tape measure. I'm going to need your help on this one, I think, Katie.
13:04Here's a parcel. Now, I should say that this parcel is a little bit smaller than the one that George sent.
13:10his was a little bit longer. Right, so, let's have a go at this. I'm going to need to get this full parcel in.
13:19No, it's not there yet.
13:22This is proving to be more than a one-person job.
13:26Hiya? You need a drone. I do need a drone.
13:30OK, let's see if we've got the full thing. What do we reckon? Just about visible?
13:37Yeah, that looks OK, yeah.
13:39That took three people. Yes. A tape measure and lots of fiddling about.
13:43Indeed. And if it all goes horribly wrong...
13:46As it nearly did.
13:48Who do you complain to?
13:50The most important thing to bear in mind is that your contract is with the company that you pay the money to.
13:55And they are the ones who are responsible for addressing the complaint.
13:58If a company is trying to charge you additional money, then it has an obligation to prove that its measurements are correct.
14:07So, if it can't prove that your parcel was too big, it can't charge you the money.
14:11Strong words from you, Martin. And thank you very much, Katie, for all your hard work. And I suppose the moral of the story is size matters.
14:20When we spoke to Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare, they told us that when customers sign up, they agree to a clearly stated billing process that allows the firm to apply adjustment charges automatically.
14:33And they stressed that they are the only firms in the sector to warn users before they proceed with a booking if the dimensions of their parcel are close to triggering a carrier surcharge.
14:44Parcel Compare added that Fiona was shown a specific warning message about this, including an explanation of the potential costs involved, as well as a clear instruction to take photos of the parcel with both the tape measure and the shipping label clearly visible.
15:01But, as we've heard, because the shipping label wasn't included in those photos, it couldn't go through UPS's dispute process.
15:09Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare also said they do not profit from surcharges applied by couriers and that every appeal is investigated thoroughly.
15:19And following customer feedback, the firms have now changed their policy so that the highest levels of surcharges will not be automatically collected until after the appeal process.
15:31And I'm pleased to say there's even better news for George, who, after we got involved, was refunded the £1,157.95 he'd been automatically charged in full.
15:45In the advice clinic today, consumer rights expert Harry Kind is on hand to help Daniel Casson from London.
15:55Daniel got in touch after purchasing brand new headphones for £100 from an online tech website called Gear Tech.
16:03But after just a couple of weeks use, I was on a webinar and they were working for the first minute, two, three minutes.
16:11And then they went off and no one could hear me. So I had to scrabble round, take them off, try and rearrange as I had about 400 people online waiting for me to come back.
16:23Not exactly what you wanted?
16:25Not at all. I thought I can't trust these headphones. I need to get new headphones and I'd like to send these back.
16:31And that's when I started the doing and throwing with the company. And then I said, can I have a refund?
16:35And?
16:36And they said, well, no, because they're now used. We can't return them because they're used.
16:42Gear Tech told Daniel that because the headphones were personally used items, hygiene regulations prevented from accepting a return.
16:51I had to use them to find out they didn't work. And then they asked me to use them again.
16:57And then they said, no, we can't take them back.
17:01They did eventually come back to me and say, we can offer you a 20% refund.
17:06And at that point I asked for their complaints procedure and they said I wasn't one.
17:12And obviously you weren't going to accept that either, were you?
17:15No. I said, this is not good enough. I deserve a full refund for these headphones that I can't trust and they don't work.
17:23What do you feel about it all, Harry?
17:25I love it when companies just make up bits of consumer law, pulling from this bit and that and thinking, you know, there's an excuse for this bad service.
17:34And it's not just the company's poor customer service that's caught Harry's attention.
17:39So I took a look at Gear Tech and for me it bears all the hallmarks of dropshipping, where basically you set up a business, people order from what looks like a UK business.
17:51But as soon as you put in an order, that business just puts in a separate order with a company, maybe based in China, and sends that product directly to you.
18:01They have no warehouse. They own no products. Really, they're just a middleman.
18:05And I found one product which is particularly egregious. This is a little mini camera advertised as being £79.99 down to £49.99.
18:13A great 37% off. What a bargain.
18:16But if you do a reverse image search, you can find that identical camera available on Alibaba for as little as £1.13.
18:25And if that is the same camera, then that is, I think, a 5,000% profit margin.
18:32But regardless of whether Gear Tech is a dropshipper or not, Daniel still has rights.
18:39So this is a fault that appeared within 30 days. He reported it.
18:44So you're entitled to a refund. And because it's less than six months after receiving the goods,
18:50The burden of proof that this item was faulty when you got it is not on you. It's on them.
18:55And I'd also say, you know, even if they weren't broken, the rules around buying things online say that you have a right to change your mind when you've received something
19:05and get that item back for a full refund within 28 days.
19:09I would be very, very sceptical of the argument that this is a personal use item, particularly because you'd be within your rights to go to a shop in person
19:20and try on a set of headphones and, you know, then say, I don't want to buy these.
19:24And that's what you're buying headphones for, to put them over your ears.
19:27Exactly right. And regardless of that, they're faulty. He deserves a refund.
19:31Well, we tried to get in touch with Gear Tech and they acknowledged our email but haven't been back in touch since.
19:37But hope is not lost, thanks to the fact that Daniel paid for the headphones by debit card.
19:43Potentially, since all else has failed, it would be worth putting in a claim with your debit card company through Chargeback
19:51and just saying, I have been ripped off here. They're not following the law. I want that money back.
19:57I thought that was for credit cards rather than debit cards.
20:00Excellent point. So with credit cards, there is a legal right with Section 75 for more expensive purchases.
20:06But with debit cards, there's an almost identical voluntary scheme that these card companies sign up to.
20:13And so there is a time limit on application with that.
20:17But it is really powerful and it's definitely something that you should use in this case.
20:22Thank you very much, Gloria. Bye bye.
20:24Thank you very much, Harry.
20:25Yes, I'd like to add my thanks, Harry, as well. Thank you very much for your advice. Great.
20:28Happy to help.
20:29If, like Daniel, you've also been met with a refund refusal that doesn't seem right, or you just don't think a company is listening to you,
20:43maybe we can help. Email your story to ripoffbritain at bbc.co.uk or send us a message via WhatsApp on 0330 678 1321.
20:55You can also, of course, get in touch via our Facebook page. Just search for BBC Ripoff Britain or put pen to paper if you like and send us a letter.
21:04The address is ripoffbritain, BBC Media City UK, Salford, M50 2LH.
21:10Please don't send any original paperwork as we won't be able to return it.
21:14Next. Now, if today's programme is about unwelcome and costly surprises, then, believe me, this next film is pretty hard to beat.
21:22Imagine leaving your car in the car park, you go shopping or something, whatever it is, for a few hours,
21:27and then you don't get your car back for two and a half years.
21:32It's a situation that not just tested the patience and the resilience of two business partners,
21:37but very nearly brought the firm that they run together to its knees.
21:41I started this business back in 1988, making furniture.
21:51Mark's now a co-owner.
21:53We tend to make bespoke one-off furniture, kitchens, wardrobes, that sort of thing.
22:00We love what we do. We're passionate about what we do.
22:03We try our very best to make the best furniture that we can make.
22:08Mark Lucas and Steve Davies are co-owners of a small furniture-making company in Buckinghamshire.
22:14And like many businesses, they tend to rely on their wheels to get them about.
22:18Picking up materials, and then obviously when the furniture is finished, we're using it for delivering it to clients' houses.
22:25So it's one of our most used assets, really, in the business.
22:31Since the business makes lots of deliveries into London's congestion-charged zones,
22:36the pair decided that investing in an electric vehicle, which would be exempt from the charges, would be smart.
22:42So they splashed out and bought a new van on finance.
22:46It was probably the biggest purchase that the business has ever made.
22:50A new van, which was just under £40,000, was a big, big investment for us.
22:55And just six months into their lease in December 2022, Mark and his apprentice were due to fit some furniture at an apartment at Rathbone Square in London's West End, right in the heart of the city.
23:09Now, the apartment owner said they could park the van in the block's car park.
23:14We pulled up outside the car park and then gave the head concierge a call, who then lifted up the doors for the car park.
23:22But this was no ordinary car park. It was multi-storey with a difference.
23:27As these promotional images for the car park demonstrate, vehicles are driven into access cabins at the base of a stacker before being moved into position automatically.
23:38The system allows a larger number of cars on top of each other when space is limited.
23:44There's no roads in there, no wheels turn. The platform that you've parked it on is picked up and shifted sideways, spun round and sent into a rack where they stack them up several high.
23:57It's an ingenious invention, as long as nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately, something did go wrong on the day that Steve and Mark parked there.
24:07The concierge of the block broke the news.
24:10He said, I'm really sorry. You can't have your van because the stacker is broken.
24:16We were both just in shock. And we honestly thought he was joking with us.
24:23At first, they sort of said, you know, we'll have a look at it over the weekend and we'll be trying to get it fixed as soon as we can.
24:31The pair got a lift back to High Wycombe, expecting they'd be able to collect the van in a few days' time. But it soon became clear it was not going to be that simple.
24:42I called up the head concierge again on Monday morning to be told that it hadn't been fixed and repairs and investigation was ongoing.
24:51And it might be a good idea to start to think about hiring a van, I guess, because we wouldn't have access to it for some time.
24:59So Mark and Steve did just that, hiring a van for what they expected to be a month or so, while anxiously awaiting news from Double Parking Systems, which is the UK distributor for the stacker technology.
25:12When news did come, more than six weeks later, it was from the concierge.
25:18This email says, good morning, Mark. We have been told by the engineers that parts are going to take up to 40 weeks to fit and repair.
25:26That's nine months.
25:29How can anything take that long to fix? We were dumbfounded.
25:35The stacker, which was stuck, was starting to seriously cost the business. As well as the finance payments for the first van, there was £694 a month in higher costs for the second. And their insurance wouldn't cover any of it.
25:51The van insurance, I phoned them up and they said, well, has it been stolen? No. Has it caught fire? No. Has it been damaged? No. Well, it's not covered.
26:02But things got even worse. The 40-week estimate to fix the stacker came and went in autumn 2023.
26:10Meanwhile, Mark and Steve were trying to get some answers, first from Double Parking Systems and then from the building's managing agent CBRE, and from the German company, Klaus Multiparking, which manufactured the stacker.
26:25It was difficult. Communication was not forthcoming.
26:29It was not forthcoming. We were trying to get hold of anyone we could get an email or a phone number for, but nobody was getting back to us.
26:38By the time we filmed with Steve and Mark, their van had been stuck inside the malfunctioning parking contraption for almost two and a half years.
26:48In that time, they say they've racked up more than £45,000 in solicitor's fees, van hire charges and other costs.
26:57Not to mention the £12,500 they spent on another second-hand van.
27:02This is the new van that we bought a month or so ago. We got tired of spending all this money on van rentals, so took out another loan and bought this.
27:12In April 2025, the pair got in touch with BBC News. A few days later, they heard that the stacker had been fixed, and the pair were hopeful that they might soon be reunited with their van.
27:27But they say, despite leaving messages for managing agents CBRE to arrange the collection, no-one has got back to them.
27:35So, some 28 months after first leaving their van at Rathbone Square, Mark and Steve are taking matters into their own hands.
27:44They've been a pain to get on the phone, so maybe us turning up in person might actually bear some better fruit.
27:52We're going to call in to the concierge and see if they can answer any of our questions.
28:03Hello. Hello there.
28:05Their van is literally metres away, but...
28:09So, you can't help me then?
28:11He said that he couldn't give us any information. We've learnt nothing.
28:16Disappointing trip down to London and a disappointing drive home this evening.
28:22Mark and Steve leave empty-handed.
28:24It's affected us financially, it's affected us emotionally, and it's stopped us from moving the business forward as we would have liked to have moved it forward.
28:35If we'd had even monthly updates, then we would have been a lot happier because we've been completely in the blind, really.
28:46Back in HQ, I'm rejoined by Harry Kind to weigh in on this story. But first, an update from Mark.
28:52Mark, thank you so much for joining us today. We're gobsmacked here in the studio. So, what's the position now?
29:01So, we have got the vehicle back, although about a week after we got it back, it broke down and we think it's due to, you know, having not been charged for over two years.
29:16Fixing that will only add to the costs, which have increased in the weeks since we filmed with them.
29:20I have just put a cost in for our claim, and we're just above £52,000 for all the van rental while it was stuck there.
29:33We've also included the depreciation of our van while it was trapped in the car park, and there's solicitors' bills as well.
29:41At the moment, we're being told we won't get a penny until they've done this forensic investigation and then have decided who's liable.
29:49I have to say, Mark, you seem remarkably calm about it all. But what has this frustration and this feeling and this experience done to you as individuals with you and your partner, Steve?
30:00It's been tough. We've had to go into an overdraft. You know, it's severely eaten into our company profits.
30:07It's been gone for such a long time. I'm really keen to see an end to it, but I don't know when that'll be.
30:13Well, I have to tell you, Mark, that we're all with you in this story. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
30:18You're welcome. Nice to meet you. Thank you very much. Yeah, you too. Bye, Mark.
30:23Well, since filming, Mark tells us that he's still awaiting the outcome of his claim, which is in the hands of the lawyers.
30:30So there you see, Harry. Let's try and break it down and just see who you think actually should be taking responsibility.
30:36Ultimately, I think the relationship that Mark has is with the car park operators. And if they haven't provided the service, ie looking after his car, getting it back to him when he needs it, then I think they have a responsibility to at least pay for the costs for this van until it can be freed.
30:58And we always say, you know, if you order something online and it gets lost in delivery, you don't have to complain to the delivery company.
31:07You complain to the person that you bought it from. And there's a certain analogy with this situation as well.
31:13Harry, thank you very much for your input. Thank you.
31:15Thank you. Thank you.
31:17Well, while Harry is confident that the responsibility here rests with a car park operator, I'm afraid to say that none of the parties involved seem to agree who that really is.
31:28The building management company CBRE, Double Parking Systems, which is the UK distributor for the stacking system, and its manufacturer, Klaus Multiparking, all told us that while they sympathize with the situation all affected vehicle owners were in, they're not directly responsible for the operation of the parking system.
31:48CBRE also said it wasn't responsible for maintenance or repair and that it had maintained regular contact with Mark and Steve throughout.
31:57Klaus Multiparking said that since it handed over the system in 2017, it has only been contacted in case spare parts where required, and that service and maintenance have been handled by Double Parking Systems.
32:10But Double Parking Systems said that since it's not the owner, manufacturer or operator of the parking system, its role has been limited.
32:20In response to Mark and Steve's complaints about poor communication, it claimed that as of October 2024, CBRE had told it not to directly contact the pair, but that it would review its processes.
32:35With Mark and Steve now hoping the legal process will settle the whole thing, we'll be sure to keep right across their progress.
32:49Now social media has its pros and cons. I look at it too much, but without it, I would feel far less informed about the world and I wouldn't laugh so much.
32:58I suppose the problem is these days is whether you can trust what you're looking at. Is it the truth or is it not? I mean, can you suss out when you're getting something false?
33:07Not always. And actually it could be getting more difficult because in early 2025, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced a new approach to fact checking.
33:17Later I'll be hearing what that's going to mean for the content that millions of us consume on its platforms. But first, here's a film we first broadcast last year revealing the astonishing power of social media misinformation.
33:35I was working on the motorway as a traffic officer. It was an early shift. We saw a dog heading down the service's exit slit robes.
33:43We managed to pull over to the hard shoulder. We managed to get out of the vehicle.
33:53But unfortunately, the dog got hit from lane one across the exit service road and back onto the hard shoulder.
34:02It was quite harrowing, quite traumatic. I went and laid him on my lap.
34:06That traumatic incident on the M1 in Nottinghamshire in 2018 had a happy ending for husky Akita mix Thor, who not only made a full recovery from his injuries.
34:26Good boy.
34:27But also forged a lifelong bond with traffic officer Hannah Weston becoming her beloved pet.
34:34I absolutely love him to bits. Wouldn't change it for the world.
34:38The dramatic rescue with its fairytale ending went viral with photos of Hannah and Thor splashed across the internet.
34:44They were circulated on Facebook and then these photos were then later picked up by, I believe it's ITV and BBC later on down the line.
34:52The clamour soon died down, but then out of the blue, four years later in December 2022.
34:58So that's me there. And there's Sheringham, Worthing, Liverpool, Chester, Ipswich.
35:08These are kind of all like spotted or swap and sell sites on Facebook.
35:13And the posts kind of all read the same, saying, I've hit this putt with my truck in said different place.
35:19He's alive but can't stand. I feel so miserable. I took him to the vet. He is not chipped.
35:24I know someone is looking for him. Please bump this post to help me find the owner.
35:28And they are all different names, different people, different profiles, all putting the same information on, with the same picture.
35:38The posts had resurfaced with a false backstory attached that bore no resemblance to the truth of what happened and were being widely shared across the UK.
35:50It was a bit weird, confusing and actually a little bit traumatic seeing it again, because you don't know what those people are using his photo for.
35:58You know, what's happened to those people after they've shared the links? You know, have they gone on and given money or have they shared something that shouldn't have been shared?
36:09It turned out the images were being used in a scam known as bait and switch.
36:15As journalist Tony Thompson from fact checking charity Full Fact explained.
36:20The first part is the bait, which is what gets people emotionally engaged.
36:23And then the switch is when they take that original post and change it to something that's for their benefit, such as a financial scam or a housing scam.
36:32And because the dozens of likes and shares from the emotionally charged posts stay on the edited posts, it gives the newly posted scam content more credibility to reel other people in.
36:45People will look at it and think, well, this must be genuine because, you know, 10,000 people have liked it. How could it not be?
36:50Tony explained this was exactly what happened with the posts about Thor, some of which had hundreds of likes and shares.
36:58We did see that spreading quite widely for a while.
37:01And then we managed to find a few examples and block them on Facebook.
37:05A few of the posts that we saw did change to mostly to housing scams.
37:08A number of organisations, including Full Fact, are paid by Facebook's owner Meta to fact check and block incorrect or misleading content on the platform.
37:22But in January 2025, all that changed after Meta announced it was phasing out third party fact checkers in the US.
37:29So what does that mean for the information being published on Facebook in the UK?
37:36Tony's back in HQ to tell us more.
37:39Thanks so much for coming back.
37:41So what system has replaced fact checking in the US or is likely to replace it?
37:44Well, what Meta have done is they've adopted a system that's being used by X, formerly known as Twitter, called Community Notes.
37:52And what that involves is basically members of the public who are using the service coming together and getting consensus on whether they think something is incorrect or not.
38:00And if enough people agree that something is incorrect, then a note can be published.
38:04And you've got an example from Meta, actually, and I'll show it and you could just explain to me how this would work.
38:08So there's somebody's posted something. Explain the whole process.
38:13Yeah, so we've got the post saying that bats are completely blind and this note says that this is a common myth.
38:18So this is a note that someone will have written. They've put a URL in there going to another website which will confirm that information.
38:24And hopefully that's a reliable sort of independent news site.
38:28This then gets submitted for other members of the website to vote on.
38:31And if enough people reach a consensus saying that, yes, this new explanation is correct and this post needs to be altered because of it, then they can hit the rate button.
38:41And if enough people rate it the same way, then it will be published.
38:45Meta hasn't announced any plans to extend its community note system beyond the US.
38:51And for Tony, that's a relief.
38:53It's not as good a system as the system that we have now.
38:56The way that community notes work on X at the moment is that it's not about accuracy, it is about consensus.
39:02And it's whether or not enough of those people reach the same consensus, that's what decides whether or not the note gets published or not.
39:09And that's one of the problems that 95% of notes at the moment don't get published because people don't reach a consensus because they continue to disagree.
39:16And I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment because you are paid some money by Meta to help fact check.
39:23So you have an interest in promoting fact checks.
39:26To a degree, but we're not against the idea of community notes.
39:28We just don't think it works as well as having independent fact checkers.
39:31And yet we and hundreds of other companies around the world are being paid by Meta to do this.
39:36But it doesn't mean that, you know, that the system they're coming up with is better than what they have now.
39:39Tony has some examples of the work they do to help people make informed decisions about the content they're seeing.
39:47What sort of posts are you talking about?
39:50It can be absolutely anything from, you know, major international news stories or elections.
39:54It might be deep fake audio of someone like Sir Keir Starmer saying something that he just never said.
40:00Or it might be something health related, like someone being told that they can do a certain thing to cure a disease.
40:04So these are the kind of posts that we look for. And when we find them, we take action.
40:09Given all the things we've discussed and you've talked about, what are your golden rules for people on verifying content they see?
40:16I think a lot of it comes down to taking your time before you just have a knee jerk reaction and share something.
40:22So it's seeing whether it's been published elsewhere on trusted sources such as the BBC or fortune newspapers,
40:28to see what people are saying in the comments, whether anybody else is questioning it the same way that you are.
40:32To check the URL that it leads to, whether it is actually a legitimate website.
40:37Quite often we've seen sites being faked or duplicated.
40:41Really just taking the time to think about it and think whether or not this is a genuine piece of footage,
40:47whether it's likely to be what it says it is.
40:50Really good thoughts. Thank you very much.
40:52We'll put all that information appropriately enough on our very own Facebook page.
40:55Tony, thank you very much.
40:57Thank you.
40:58We contacted Meta about all of this, but didn't get a response.
41:02Meanwhile, X, formerly Twitter, didn't respond to Tony's criticisms of community notes,
41:08but did point us to guidance on its website, X.com.
41:12Well, I'm glad to say that Harry and Martin are back to answer your questions, so we're going to cut to the chase.
41:22And Martin, this one is for you.
41:24John Ellis has asked for help on behalf of his daughter, who has an ongoing dispute with her energy supplier.
41:30The energy ombudsman has fined in her favour, but the energy supplier is still disputing the case.
41:34So where does she stand and where on earth can she go next?
41:38So it depends how far in the energy ombudsman's process this has got.
41:43A firm and you as a consumer can object after the initial view of the ombudsman.
41:49But when the ombudsman gives their final decision, that is it.
41:53The company is obliged to follow that.
41:55So if it's got to that stage, the company has a maximum of 28 days to pay out.
41:59Failing that, they can be reported to the regulator.
42:02It's very rare for these things to drag on, but this really should not be happening with the business.
42:07Harry, this one for you.
42:09Bernard Regan got in touch after his keys stopped working for his front door.
42:14So he contacted a locksmith to drill out the existing lock and fitter replacement.
42:19The bill came to £1,652, which he paid, but on reflection thinks this was a bit excessive.
42:26He asked if you have any advice about how he can check whether this was indeed a reasonable charge.
42:32That is a lot of money for what could be quite a simple task.
42:36I would say it's worth him getting in touch with a reputable locksmith.
42:40One through the Master Locksmith Association, which is a free resource that allows you to get a good locksmith.
42:46Get a quote for what that should have cost.
42:49Go back to that locksmith and say, this was way too much.
42:51And if they won't give a refund, at the end of the day going to Trading Standards and making a complaint about this person who is basically ripping someone off.
42:59And on that firm but fair note, I'm afraid that's almost all we've got time for.
43:04If you've missed any of the tips in today's programme, from how to avoid extra charges when sending a parcel,
43:09to how to make sure you get the refund you're entitled to, then you can catch up on today's programme and many more on BBC iPlayer.
43:18And it's really worthwhile doing that.
43:20But for today, I want to say thank you very much indeed for joining us.
43:23From everybody here on the team, bye-bye.
43:25Goodbye.
43:26Bye.
43:27Bye.
43:56Bye.
Được khuyến cáo
42:31
|
Sắp Tới
43:57
1:04
42:31
21:51
49:25
1:09:05
57:01
58:51
1:01:02
57:19
2:25:30
Hãy là người đầu tiên nhận xét