- 5 hours ago
Rip off Britain - Season 17 Episode 17 -
£1,000 to send a parcel
£1,000 to send a parcel
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00more than a thousand pounds in fees because the delivery firm said that he got the measurements
00:04wrong. The fact that someone could just take that sum of money out of your account without
00:10you being notified, it almost felt like theft. Plus the small business whose van got trapped
00:16in a car park for more than two and a half years. It's affected us emotionally and it stopped us
00:23from moving the business forward as we would have liked to have. The fallout has cost them
00:29more than 45,000 pounds they worry they may never get back. Helping you avoid expensive
00:35surprises. This is Ripoff Britain.
00:45Hello and welcome to Ripoff Britain where today our team here in Salford has been investigating
00:50your reports of unwelcome surprises which have really hit you hard in the pocket. Including
00:55the faulty set of headphones that haven't worked properly since they came out of the box. With
01:01the retailer refusing a refund, the experts in our advice clinic are here to see if they
01:06can help one man get his money back. I said this is not good enough. I deserve a full refund
01:11for these headphones that just don't, I can't trust and they don't work. Plus how much can
01:15you ever trust what is written on social media? With Facebook's parent company bringing an end
01:21to some formal fact checks, we've got the tricks that will help you tell the facts from the fakes.
01:26But first today, it's a reality of the way that many of us pay for things these days. That a lot
01:31of companies have our bank details on record. And somewhere down the line we've agreed to terms
01:37and conditions that allow those companies to charge our bank accounts without explicitly asking us first.
01:43It's really useful when it comes to paying subscriptions and that kind of thing. But when you're not expecting the money
01:49to leave your account, that can sting. The surprise charges at the center of our first film today are
01:54particularly breathtaking. What started as a £35 debit card payment to send a parcel led to more
02:01than £1,000 being debited from one man's bank account.
02:07There have never been more ways to send a parcel. Forget queuing at the post office. Nowadays you don't
02:13even need to leave your own home. For busy company director George from Essex, this is a godsend.
02:21In January 2025, he needed to return some vinyl flooring that he bought online that wasn't quite right.
02:29I'm currently in a rented property and the handyman has said we need to rip up the existing vinyl in
02:34the hallway. So it just wasn't practical. George knew he'd take a hit on the cost of returning the flooring.
02:41And so when the seller recommended that he look at a website called Parcel Hero, where he could
02:46compare the prices of various courier firms, he went ahead. The weight was 5.5 kgs. The length
02:56was 205 centimeters. The width was 11 centimeters and the height was 11 centimeters.
03:02As instructed, George carefully weighed and measured the package and entered the details into the
03:08Parcel Hero website. It came up with a number of quotes, including one from UPS. At £35.65, it was
03:18almost half the original price of the flooring, but George swallowed the cost.
03:23The £35.65 came out of my account and then they came and collected the parcel within 24-48 hours,
03:31I think. One thing off my mind can focus on my day. But a week later, George received an email from
03:40Parcel Hero. We're sorry to inform you that UPS has audited your shipment and found that the weight
03:46or dimensions you provided to us was inaccurate and this has affected the cost of your shipment.
03:52The email didn't say how much extra he'd been charged, so George checked with his bank.
03:57I was like, whoa. It was a bit of a shock to the system.
04:041157.95 came out of my account.
04:07Yes. £1,157.95 had been debited by Parcel Hero.
04:17I just thought it was preposterous and left me very shocked. I just thought it must be a mistake.
04:23And it wasn't just the amount that shocked George. The fact that someone could just take that sum of
04:30money out of your account without you being notified just came straight out. So it almost felt like theft.
04:39George complained to Parcel Hero, but the company stood firm. It told him that the measurements of
04:44his parcel were much larger than those he had submitted. Knowing he'd used the same packaging
04:49to return the flooring as it had been delivered in, he contacted the seller to ask for the dimensions
04:55on that original package. I provided the screenshot from the seller outlining the dimensions which were
05:02205, 11, 11 and a weight of 5.5 kg. I then got an invoice from the seller which outlined that it cost him
05:11£11.69 to send the parcel to me. So I was like, how on earth is it costing me over £1,000 to send the
05:20same item back to him? But that wasn't enough. Parcel Hero asked for photographic proof of the dimensions.
05:29So George got back onto the seller, who sent photos of an identical product all packaged up, but still no joy.
05:37I 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.
05:46With George feeling boxed into a corner, he wrote to us. Little did he know that we had heard similar
05:54tales from other customers of Parcel Hero, as well as its sister company Parcel Compare,
06:01including furniture upcycler Fiona Roberts from Surrey. She often sends bulky packages abroad.
06:08I know the importance of getting the dimensions right. I know the importance of the measurements being
06:13correct because I know there are repercussions if it's not correct. In January 2025, she needed to
06:21dispatch a projector she'd sold online and even took photos of the package measurements. Using the
06:28Parcel Compare website, she selected UPS as a courier, paid £43.75 and sent the parcel on its way.
06:36But a week later, she received a notification from her bank saying she'd been charged £174.52.
06:46That was followed by an email from Parcel Compare with an invoice attached.
06:52They've put here large parcel surcharge, they've put weight adjustment, but I'm not sure why they've done
06:57this. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's just really confusing why they've done this.
07:02Fiona was adamant that she hadn't underestimated the size and weight of her parcel. So she went back
07:10to Parcel Compare with the photos she'd taken before she'd shipped it. But the firm said that because
07:16the packing label wasn't visible in the pictures, it couldn't be sure that the photos were of the
07:21correct item. Fiona also went to her bank, astonished that Parcel Compare was just able to take more from
07:28her account without notifying her. But it pointed out the company's T's and C's, stating it can do
07:35just that. I'm a hard-working person and them dipping into my hard-earned money and just helping
07:43themselves, I feel mugged, I feel robbed. And it's those same T's and C's that George has come up against.
07:51Because Parcel Hero, the company he used, has the same T's and C's as its sister company,
07:58Parcel Compare. Unable to provide the proof Parcel Hero required, he's currently over a thousand
08:05pounds out of pocket. I feel more than aggrieved with Parcel Hero anxiety at the beginning and then
08:12anger, frustration. I've done everything in my power to try and resolve it amicably, but
08:17alas, no positive result. Ah, poor George. Well, time for me to unpack all that with the help of
08:26consumer rights brain box Martin James and one of our producers, Katie Saatchi, who's been investigating
08:32those incredible extra charges. Katie, I suppose the big question has to be how on earth George has
08:41ended up being charged an additional fee of more than £1,000. Well, if I'm speaking to Parcel Hero,
08:48it seems that it was all due to the length of the parcel. George measured it and says that it was 205
08:54centimetres. But when it got to UPS and they took their own measurements, they told Parcel Hero that it
09:00was 277 centimetres and that triggered another chain of events because 277 is higher than the maximum
09:09limit that UPS will carry and that incurs significant extra costs. So I can show you on
09:16Parcel Hero's website that the UPS penalty fee there at the bottom for exceeding the maximum limit
09:23is more than £800. That is a huge amount, isn't it? So how come, in Fiona's case, the surcharge was much
09:32smaller? Well, it was £174, so still a considerable amount to be charged without any warning. But Parcel
09:40Compare, which is Parcel Hero's sister company, again said that the measurements of the parcel
09:46seemed to be bigger than Fiona had entered on the website. So from her calculations and photos,
09:53it was measuring at 234 by 13 by 13 centimetres. And she said that she actually inputted slightly
10:01larger dimensions. But when it was measured by UPS's own calibrated equipment, it was found
10:06to be 240 by 19 by 15 centimetres. That means it's classed as a large package and costs more to send.
10:15And we asked for evidence of UPS's measurements for both Fiona and George's parcels, but neither Parcel Hero
10:22Compare or UPS could provide those. My head is already spinning and we're only at the foothills
10:29of this, but who's actually levying these charges? Is it the parcel comparison sites or is it the courier?
10:34It's the courier, so UPS in this case. And it told us that its surcharges reflect the additional cost of
10:41handling outsized items to make sure, among other things, that its staff are safe and that all packages
10:48can move through its network safely. And that network is mostly automated.
10:53I suppose that's understandable. But Martin, why is it that Parcel Compare and Parcel Hero were able to
10:58charge Fiona and George without warning? Well, I'm not entirely convinced that they can,
11:03to be honest, Judy. Whilst it's true that a company can charge you additional fees and charges if you
11:08agree to do so, clearly under these circumstances, George wasn't aware of how much this was going to be.
11:14Now, if the money is taken from your account without authorization, according to the banking rules,
11:19then you can dispute that. And I've spoken to the Financial Conduct Authority about this,
11:23and they've said that even if the company had made it clear that fees were possible,
11:28it may still be possible to actually appeal through your bank because of the size
11:33of the fees themselves. Now, we have to be fair to the business. It does say on their website,
11:38as we can see here, that they reserve the right to automatically take payment
11:43for additional charges. And that's precisely what they've done. But my view is the charges
11:48are so big that no one in their right mind would authorise those.
11:51It's a ludicrous amount of money. I mean, you could buy in George's parcel
11:54a ticket to pretty much any European destination on a plane. It could have a whale of a time
11:59and it would have been cheaper. Interesting. Well, Katie, have we heard about this kind of
12:03situation with other delivery firms or parcel comparison sites? Yes, we have. And it's important
12:08to note that Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare are not the only ones whose terms and conditions allow
12:14them to charge your card extra without asking you first. We checked some of their main competitors
12:20and two of them have similar clauses. By contrast, Interparcel specifies that for any amount that's more
12:27than £30, it will send you an invoice asking for payment. You can either pay that or you've got
12:33seven days to dispute it by sending in evidence. But whichever firm you choose to send a parcel,
12:40taking photos of it before you do so is key to making sure that you can argue the toss over any
12:46extra charges you may incur. But getting those shots just right isn't easy, as Martin is about to find out.
12:54I brought my tape measure with me, so we've got the handy tape measure. I'm going to need your help on
12:57this one, I think, Katie. Here's a parcel. Now, I should say that this parcel is a little bit smaller
13:03than the one that George sent. His was a little bit longer. Right, so that's how we go with this.
13:10I'm going to need to get this full parcel in. No, it's not there yet.
13:15This is proving to be more than a one-person job.
13:19Hiya? You need a drone. I do need a drone.
13:25OK, let's see if we've got the full thing. What do we reckon?
13:31Just about visible? Yeah, that looks OK. Yeah.
13:33So, that took three people. Yes.
13:36A tape measure and lots of fiddling about. Indeed. And if it all goes horribly wrong...
13:40As it nearly did. Who do you complain to?
13:45The most important thing to bear in mind is that your contract is with the company
13:49that you pay the money to, and they are the ones who are responsible for addressing the complaint.
13:54If a company is trying to charge you additional money, then it has an obligation to prove
14:00that its measurements are correct. So, if it can't prove that your parcel was too big,
14:05it can't charge you the money. Strong words from you, Martin. And thank you very much,
14:09Katie, for all your hard work. And I suppose the moral of the story is, size matters.
14:15When we spoke to Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare, they told us that when customers sign up,
14:21they agree to a clearly stated billing process that allows the firm to apply adjustment charges
14:27automatically. And they stressed that they are the only firms in the sector to warn users before
14:33they proceed with a booking if the dimensions of their parcel are close to triggering a carrier
14:38surcharge. Parcel Compare added that Fiona was shown a specific warning message about this,
14:44including an explanation of the potential costs involved, as well as a clear instruction to take
14:50photos of the parcel with both the tape measure and the shipping label clearly visible. But as we've
14:57heard, because the shipping label wasn't included in those photos, it couldn't go through UPS's dispute
15:03process. Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare also said they do not profit from surcharges applied by
15:10couriers and that every appeal is investigated thoroughly. And following customer feedback,
15:16the firms have now changed their policy so that the highest levels of surcharges will not be
15:22automatically collected until after the appeal process. And I'm pleased to say there's even better
15:29news for George, who, after we got involved, was refunded the £1,157.95 he'd been automatically charged in full.
15:40In the advice clinic today, consumer rights expert Harry Kind is on hand to help Daniel Kasson from London.
15:50Daniel got in touch after purchasing brand new headphones for £100 from an online tech website
15:57called Gear Tech. But after just a couple of weeks' use…
16:00I was on a webinar and they were working for the first minute, two, three minutes, and then they went off and no
16:08one could hear me. So I had to scrabble round, take them off, try and rearrange as I had about 400
16:15people online waiting for me to come back. Not exactly what you wanted? Not at all. I thought,
16:21I can't trust these headphones. I need to get new headphones and I'd like to send these back. And
16:26that's when I started the to-ing and fro-ing with the company. And then I said, can I have a refund?
16:30And? And they said, well, no, because they're now used. We can't return them because they're used.
16:36Gear Tech told Daniel that because the headphones were personally used items,
16:42hygiene regulations prevented from accepting a return.
16:47I had to use them to find out they didn't work. And then they asked me to use them again.
16:52And then they said, no, we can't take them back. They did eventually come back to me and say,
16:59we can offer you a 20% refund. And at that point, I asked for their complaints procedure.
17:05And they said I wasn't one. And obviously, you weren't going to accept that either, were you?
17:10No, I said, this is not good enough. I deserve a full refund for these headphones that I can't
17:17trust and they don't work. What do you feel about it all, Harry?
17:20I love it when companies just make up bits of consumer law, pulling from this bit and that,
17:25and thinking, you know, there's an excuse for this bad service.
17:29And it's not just the company's poor customer service that's caught Harry's attention.
17:34So I took a look at gear tech. And for me, it bears all the hallmarks of dropshipping,
17:39where basically, you set up a business, people order from what looks like a UK business.
17:46But as soon as you put in an order, that business just puts in a separate order with a company,
17:51maybe based in China, and sends that product directly to you. They have no warehouse,
17:57they own no products, really, they're just a middleman. And I found one product which is
18:01particularly egregious. This is a little mini camera advertised as being £79.99 down to £49.99.
18:08A great 37% off. What a bargain. But if you do a reverse image search, you can find that
18:13identical camera available on Alibaba for as little as £1.13. And if that is the same camera,
18:22then that is, I think, a 5,000% profit margin.
18:26But regardless of whether gear tech is a dropshipper or not, Daniel still has rights.
18:32So this is a fault that appeared within 30 days, he reported it. So you're entitled to a refund. And
18:41because it's less than six months after receiving the goods, the burden of proof that this item was
18:47faulty when you got it is not on you, it's on them. And I'd also say, you know, even if they weren't
18:52broken, the rules around buying things online say that you have a right to change your mind when
18:58you've received something and get that item back for a full refund within 28 days. I would be very,
19:07very sceptical of the argument that this is a personal use item, particularly because you'd be
19:12within your rights to go to a shop in person and try on a set of headphones and, you know,
19:18then say, I don't want to buy these. And that's what you're buying headphones for,
19:21to put them over your ears. Exactly right. And regardless of that,
19:24they're faulty. He deserves a refund. Well,
19:26we tried to get in touch with the gear tech and they acknowledged our email,
19:30but haven't been back in touch since. But hope is not lost,
19:34thanks to the fact that Daniel paid for the headphones by debit card.
19:38Potentially, since all else has failed, it would be worth putting in a claim with your debit card
19:44company through Chargeback and just saying, I have been ripped off here. They're not following the law.
19:51I want that money back. I thought that was for credit cards rather than debit cards.
19:54Excellent point. So with credit cards, there is a legal right with section 75 for more expensive purchases.
20:01But with debit cards, there's an almost identical voluntary scheme that these card companies sign up to.
20:08And so there is a time limit on application with that. But it is really powerful. And it's definitely
20:16something that you should use in this case. Thank you very much, Gloria. Thank you very much, Harry.
20:20Yes, I'd like to add my thanks, Harry, as well. Thank you very much for your advice. Great.
20:23Happy to help.
20:30If like Daniel, you've also been met with a refund refusal that doesn't seem right,
20:35or you just don't think a company is listening to you, maybe we can help. Email your story to ripoffbritain
20:41at bbc.co.uk or send us a message via WhatsApp on 0030 678 1321. You can also of course get in touch
20:52via our Facebook page. Just search for BBC Ripoff Britain or put pen to paper if you like and send us
20:57a letter. The address is ripoffbritain, BBC Media City UK, Salford, M50 2LH. Please don't send any
21:06original paperwork as we won't be able to return it. Next. Now, if today's program is about unwelcome and
21:12costly surprises, then believe me, this next film is pretty hard to beat. Imagine leaving your car
21:18in the car park, you go shopping or something, whatever it is for a few hours, and then you don't
21:23get your car back for two and a half years. It's a situation that not just tested the patience and
21:29the resilience of two business partners, but very nearly brought the firm that they run together
21:34to its knees. I started this business back in 1988, making furniture. Mark's now a co-owner. We
21:48tend to make bespoke, one-off furniture, kitchens, wardrobes, that sort of thing. We love what we do.
21:56We're passionate about what we do. We try our very best to make the best furniture that we can make.
22:02Mark Lucas and Steve Davies are co-owners of a small furniture-making company in Buckinghamshire.
22:09And like many businesses, they tend to rely on their wheels to get them about.
22:13Mark Lucas and Steve Davies are co-owners of a small furniture-making company in Buckinghamshire.
22:13And like many businesses, they tend to rely on their wheels to get them about.
22:14Picking up materials, and then obviously when the furniture is finished, we're using it for
22:18delivering it to clients' houses. So it's one of our most used assets, really, in the business.
22:24Since the business makes lots of deliveries into London's congestion-charged zones,
22:31the pair decided that investing in an electric vehicle, which would be exempt from the charges,
22:36would be smart. So they splashed out and bought a new van on finance.
22:41It was probably the biggest purchase that the business has ever made.
22:45A new van, which was just under £40,000, was a big, big investment for us.
22:50And just six months into their lease in December 2022, Mark and his apprentice were due to fit some
22:59furniture at an apartment at Rathbone Square in London's West End, right in the heart of the city.
23:04Now, the apartment owner said they could park the van in the block's car park.
23:09We pulled up outside the car park and then gave the head concierge a call,
23:14who then lifted up the doors for the car park.
23:18But this was no ordinary car park. It was multi-storey with a difference.
23:23As these promotional images for the car park demonstrate,
23:26vehicles are driven in to access cabins at the base of a stacker,
23:30before being moved into position automatically.
23:33The system allows a larger number of cars on top of each other when space is limited.
23:38There's no roads in there, no wheels turn. The platform that you've parked it on is picked up
23:45and shifted sideways, spun round and sent into a rack where they stacked them up several high.
23:53It's an ingenious invention, as long as nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately, something did go wrong
23:59on the day that Steve and Mark parked there. The concierge of the block broke the news.
24:04He said, I'm really sorry. You can't have your van because the stacker is broken.
24:13We were both just in shock. And we honestly thought he was joking with us.
24:20At first, they sort of said, you know, we'll have a look at it over the weekend
24:23and we'll be trying to get it fixed as soon as we can.
24:27The pair got a lift back to High Wycombe,
24:29expecting they'd be able to collect the van in a few days' time.
24:33But it soon became clear it was not going to be that simple.
24:38I called up the head concierge again on Monday morning to be told that it hadn't been fixed
24:43and that repairs and investigation was ongoing. And it might be a good idea to start to think about
24:49hiring a van, I guess, because we wouldn't have access to it for some time.
24:55So Mark and Steve did just that, hiring a van for what they expected to be a month or so,
25:01while anxiously awaiting news from Double Parking Systems, which is the UK distributor for the
25:06stacker technology. When news did come, more than six weeks later, it was from the concierge.
25:13This email says, good morning, Mark. We have been told by the engineers that parts are going to take
25:18up to 40 weeks to fit and repair. That's nine months.
25:23How can anything take that long to fix? We were dumbfounded.
25:31The stacker which was stuck was starting to seriously cost the business.
25:36As well as the finance payments for the first van, there was £694 a month in higher costs for the
25:42second. And their insurance wouldn't cover any of it.
25:47The van insurance, I phoned them up and they said, well, has it been stolen? No.
25:53Has it caught fire? No. Has it been damaged? No. Well, it's not covered.
25:59But things got even worse.
26:01The 40-week estimate to fix the stacker came and went in autumn 2023.
26:06Meanwhile, Mark and Steve were trying to get some answers.
26:10First from Double Parking Systems, and then from the building's managing agent, CBRE.
26:16And from the German company, Klaus Multiparking, which manufactured the stacker.
26:21It was difficult. Communication was not forthcoming.
26:25We were trying to get hold of anyone we could get an email or a phone number for.
26:30But nobody was getting back to us.
26:33By the time we filmed with Steve and Mark, their van had been stuck inside the malfunctioning
26:38parking contraption for almost two and a half years.
26:43In that time, they say they've racked up more than £45,000 in solicitor's fees,
26:49van hire charges and other costs. Not to mention the £12,500 they spent on another secondhand van.
26:56This is the new van that we bought a month or so ago. We got tired of spending all this money on van
27:03rental. So we took out another loan and bought this.
27:06In April 2025, the pair got in touch with BBC News. A few days later, they heard that the stacker had been fixed.
27:17And the pair were hopeful that they might soon be reunited with their van.
27:21But they say, despite leaving messages for managing agents CBRE to arrange the collection, no one has got back to them.
27:30So, some 28 months after first leaving their van at Rathbone Square, Mark and Steve are taking matters into their own hands.
27:38They've been a pain to get on the phone, so maybe us turning up in person might actually bear some better fruit.
27:46We're going to call in to the concierge and see if they can answer any of our questions.
27:58Hello. Hello there.
27:59Their van is literally metres away, but…
28:04So you can't help me then. He said that he couldn't give us any information. We've learnt nothing.
28:10A disappointing trip down to London and a disappointing drive home this evening.
28:16Mark and Steve leave empty-handed.
28:19It's affected us financially. It's affected us emotionally.
28:24And it's stopped us from moving the business forward as we would have liked to have moved it forward.
28:30If we'd had even monthly updates, then we would have been a lot happier because we've been completely in the blind, really.
28:41Back in HQ, I'm rejoined by Harry Kind to weigh in on this story.
28:46But first, an update from Mark.
28:50Mark, thank you so much for joining us today. We're gobsmacked here in the studio.
28:55So what's the position now?
28:56So we have got the vehicle back, although about a week after we got it back, it broke down.
29:04And we think it's due to, you know, having not been charged for over two years.
29:10Fixing that will only add to the costs, which have increased in the weeks since we filmed with them.
29:16I 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.
29:27We've also included the depreciation of our van while it was trapped in the car park.
29:33And there's solicitors' bills as well.
29:36At 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.
29:44I have to say, Mark, you seem remarkably calm about it all.
29:47But what has this frustration and this feeling and this experience done to you as individuals with you and your partner, Steve?
29:54Well, it's been tough.
29:55We've had to go into an overdraft.
29:58You know, it's severely eaten into our company profits.
30:02It's been gone for such a long time.
30:04I'm really keen to see an end to it, but I don't know when that'll be.
30:08Well, I have to tell you, Mark, that we're all with you in this story.
30:12Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
30:13You're welcome. Nice to meet you.
30:14Thank you very much.
30:15Yeah, you too. Bye, Mark.
30:18Well, since filming, Mark tells us that he's still awaiting the outcome of his claim,
30:22which is in the hands of the lawyers.
30:25So there you see, Harry.
30:26Let's try and break it down and just see who you think actually should be taking responsibility.
30:31Ultimately, I think the relationship that Mark has is with the car park operators.
30:37And if they haven't provided the service, i.e. looking after his car, getting it back to him when he needs it,
30:45then I think they have a responsibility to at least pay for the costs for this van until it can be freed.
30:53And we always say, you know, if you order something online and it gets lost in delivery,
30:59you don't have to complain to the delivery company.
31:01You complain to the person that you bought it from.
31:04And there's a certain analogy with this situation as well.
31:08Harry, thank you very much for your input. Thank you.
31:12Well, while Harry is confident that the responsibility here rests with a car park operator,
31:17I'm afraid to say that none of the parties involved seem to agree who that really is.
31:22The building management company, CBRE, Double Parking Systems, which is the UK distributor for the
31:29stacking system, and its manufacturer, Klaus Multiparking, all told us that while they sympathize
31:35with the situation all affected vehicle owners were in, they're not directly responsible for the
31:41operation of the parking system. CBRE also said it wasn't responsible for maintenance or repair,
31:48and that it had maintained regular contact with Mark and Steve throughout.
31:53Klaus Multiparking said that since it handed over the system in 2017, it has only been contacted in
31:59case spare parts were required, and that service and maintenance have been handled by Double Parking
32:05Systems. But Double Parking Systems said that since it's not the owner, manufacturer,
32:11or operator of the parking system, its role has been limited. In response to Mark and Steve's
32:17complaints about poor communication, it claimed that as of October 2024, CBRE had told it not to
32:25directly contact the pair, but that it would review its processes. With Mark and Steve now hoping the
32:32legal process will settle the whole thing. We'll be sure to keep right across their progress.
32:44Now, social media has its pros and cons. I look at it too much, but without it,
32:49I would feel far less informed about the world, and I wouldn't laugh so much.
32:52I suppose the problem is, these days, is whether you can trust what you're looking at. Is it the truth,
32:58or is it not? I mean, can you suss out when you're getting something false?
33:02Not always. And actually, it could be getting more difficult, because in early 2025, Meta,
33:07which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced a new approach to fact-checking. Later, I'll be
33:13hearing what that's going to mean for the content that millions of us consume on its platforms. But
33:18first, here's a film we first broadcast last year, revealing the astonishing power of social media
33:24misinformation.
33:30I was working on the motorway as a traffic officer. It was an early shift. We saw a dog heading down
33:36the service's exit slip road. We managed to pull over to the hard shoulder, managed to get out of the
33:44vehicle. But unfortunately, the dog got hit from lane one across the exit service road,
33:54and back onto the hard shoulder. It was quite harrowing, quite traumatic. I went and laid him on my lap.
34:10That traumatic incident on the M1 in Nottinghamshire in 2018 had a happy ending
34:16for husky Akita mix Thor, who not only made a full recovery from his injuries,
34:22but also forged a lifelong bond with traffic officer Hannah Weston, becoming her beloved pet.
34:29I absolutely love him to bits. Wouldn't change it for the world.
34:32The dramatic rescue with its fairytale ending went viral, with photos of Hannah and Thor splashed
34:39across the internet.
34:40They were circulated on Facebook and then these photos were then later picked up by,
34:44I believe it's ITV and BBC later on down the line.
34:47The clamour soon died down, but then out of the blue, four years later in December 2022.
34:53So that's me there. There's Sheringham, Worthing, Liverpool, Chester, Ipswich. These are kind of all
35:04like spotted or swapping cell sites on Facebook. And the posts kind of all read the same, saying,
35:10I've hit this put with my truck in said different place. He's alive but can't stand. I feel so miserable.
35:16I took him to the vet. He is not chipped. I know someone is looking for him. Please bump this post
35:21to help me find the owner. And they are all different names, different people, different
35:26profiles, all putting the same information on, with the same picture.
35:33The posts had resurfaced, with a false backstory attached that bore no resemblance to the truth
35:40of what happened and were being widely shared across the UK.
35:44It was a bit weird, confusing and actually a little bit traumatic seeing it again,
35:50because you don't know what those people are using his photo for.
35:54You know, what's happened to those people after they've shared the links? You know,
35:58have they gone on and given money or have they shared something that shouldn't have been shared?
36:03It turned out the images were being used in a scam known as bait and switch. As journalist
36:10Tony Thompson from fact-checking charity Full Fact explained. The first part is the bait,
36:16which is what gets people emotionally engaged. And then the switch is when they take that original
36:21post and change it to something that's for their benefit, such as a financial scam or a housing scam.
36:27And because the dozens of likes and shares from the emotionally charged posts
36:31stay on the edited posts, it gives the newly posted scam content more credibility to reel other
36:38people in. People will look at it and think, well, this must be genuine because, you know,
36:4210,000 people have liked it. How could it not be? Tony explained this was exactly what happened
36:48with the posts about Thor, some of which had hundreds of likes and shares. We did see that spreading
36:54quite widely for a while. And then we managed to find a few examples and block them on Facebook.
36:59A few of the posts that we saw did change to mostly to housing scams.
37:05A number of organisations, including Full Fact, are paid by Facebook's owner, Meta,
37:11to fact-check and block incorrect or misleading content on the platform. But in January 2025,
37:18all that changed after Meta announced it was phasing out third-party fact-checkers in the US.
37:24So what does that mean for the information being published on Facebook in the UK? Tony's back in
37:31HQ to tell us more. Thanks so much for coming back. So what system has replaced fact-checking in
37:38the US or has liked you to replace it? Well, what Meta have done is they've adopted a system that's
37:42being used by X, formerly known as Twitter, called Community Notes. And what that involves is basically
37:48members of the public who are using the service coming together and getting consensus on whether they
37:52think something is incorrect or not. And if enough people agree that something is incorrect,
37:57then a note can be published. And you've got an example from Meta, actually,
38:01and I'll show it. And you could just explain to me how this would work. So there's somebody's posted
38:05something. Explain the whole process. Yeah, so we've got the post saying that bats are completely blind
38:10and this note says that this is a common myth. So this is a note that someone will have written.
38:14They've put a URL in there going to another website, which will confirm that information.
38:19And hopefully that's a reliable sort of independent news site. This then gets submitted for other
38:24members of the website to vote on. And if enough people reach a consensus saying that yes, this new
38:29explanation is correct and this post needs to be altered because of it, then they can hit the
38:35rate button. And if enough people rate it the same way, then it will be published.
38:39Meta hasn't announced any plans to extend its community note system beyond the US. And for Tony,
38:46that's a relief. It's not as good a system as the system that we have now. The way that community
38:52notes work on X at the moment is that it's not about accuracy, it is about consensus. And it's
38:57whether or not enough of those people reach the same consensus, that's what decides whether or not
39:02the note gets published or not. And that's one of the problems that 95% of notes at the moment don't
39:06get published because people don't reach a consensus because they continue to disagree.
39:11And I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment because you are
39:14paid some money by Meta to help fact check. So you have an interest in promoting fact checks.
39:20To a degree, but we're not against the idea of community notes. We just don't think it works as
39:23well as having independent fact checkers. And yes, we and hundreds of other companies around the world
39:29are being paid by Meta to do this, but it doesn't mean that, you know, that the system they're coming
39:33up with is better than what they have now. Tony has some examples of the work they do to help
39:38people make informed decisions about the content they're seeing. What sort of posts are you talking
39:44about? It can be absolutely anything from, you know, major international news stories or elections.
39:48It might be a deep fake audio of someone like Sir Keir Starmer saying something that he just never said,
39:55or it might be something health related, like someone being told that they can do a certain
39:58thing to cure disease. So these are the kind of posts that we look for. And when we find them,
40:03we take action. Given all the things we've discussed and you've talked about, what are your golden rules
40:08for people on verifying content they see? I think a lot of it comes down to taking your time before
40:14you just have an eject reaction and share something. So it's seeing whether it's been published elsewhere
40:19on trusted sources, such as the BBC or fortune newspapers, to see what people are saying in the comments,
40:25whether anybody else is questioning it the same way that you are, to check the URL that it leads
40:30to, whether it is actually a legitimate website. Quite often, we've seen sites being faked or
40:34duplicated. Really just taking the time to think about it and think whether or not this is a genuine
40:41piece of footage, whether it's likely to be what it says it is. Really good thoughts. Thank you very
40:45much. We'll put all that information appropriately enough on our very own Facebook page. Tony,
40:50thank you very much. Thank you. We contacted Meta about all of this, but didn't get a response.
40:57Meanwhile, X, formerly Twitter, didn't respond to Tony's criticisms of community notes,
41:03but 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
41:16the chase and Martin, this one is for you. John Ellis has asked for help on behalf of his daughter,
41:21who has an ongoing dispute with her energy supplier. The energy ombudsman has fined in her favour,
41:27but the energy supplier is still disputing the case. So where does she stand and where on earth can she go
41:32next? So it depends how far in the energy ombudsman's process this has got. A firm and you as a consumer
41:40can object after the initial view of the ombudsman, but when the ombudsman gives their final decision,
41:45that is it. The company is obliged to follow that. So if it's got to that stage, the company has a
41:52maximum of 28 days to pay out. Failing that, they can be reported to the regulator. It's very rare for
41:58these things to drag on, but this really should not be happening with the business. Harry, this one
42:03for you. Bernard Regan got in touch after his keys stopped working for his front door. So he contacted a
42:09locksmith to drill out the existing lock and fitter replacement. The bill came to £1,652,
42:17which he paid, but on reflection thinks this was a bit excessive. He asked if you have any advice
42:23about how he can check whether this was indeed a reasonable charge. That is a lot of money for
42:28what could be quite a simple task. I would say it's worth him getting in touch with a reputable
42:34locksmith. One through the Master Locksmith Association, which is a free resource that
42:39allows you to get a good locksmith. Get a quote for what that should have cost. Go back to that
42:44locksmith and say, this was way too much. And if they won't give a refund, at the end of the day,
42:49going to Trading Standards and making a complaint about this person who is basically ripping someone
42:53off. And on that firm but fair note, I'm afraid that's almost all we've got time for.
42:59If you've missed any of the tips in today's programme from how to avoid extra charges when
43:04sending a parcel to how to make sure you get the refund you're entitled to,
43:08then you can catch up on today's programme and many more on BBC iPlayer.
43:12And it's really worthwhile doing that. But for today,
43:15I want to say thank you very much indeed for joining us from everybody here on the team.
43:19Bye-bye. Goodbye.
43:20Bye-bye.
43:30Bye-bye.
43:44Bye-bye.
Recommended
43:57
|
Up next
28:26
45:55
1:29
59:04
1:31:10
1:59:55
27:48
38:49
29:44
1:25:23
48:10
48:16
47:59
48:16
48:12
49:25
50:36
38:33
56:24
Be the first to comment