- 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, Picking up materials. And then obviously, when the furniture is finished,
22:18we're using it for delivering it to clients' houses. So it's one of our most used assets,
22:23really, in the business. Since the business makes lots of deliveries into London's congestion-charged
22:30zones. The pair decided that investing in an electric vehicle, which would be exempt from the
22:35charges, would 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. A new van,
22:46which 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.
23:05Now, the apartment owners said they could park the van in the block's car park.
23:10We 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, vehicles are driven in to access
23:28cabins at the base of a stacker before being moved into position automatically.
23:33The system allows a larger number of cars on top of each other when space is limited.
23:39There'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 stack them up several high.
23:53It's an ingenious invention, as long as nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately, something did go wrong on
24:00the day that Steve and Mark parked there. The concierge of the block broke the news.
24:05He 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.
24:26The pair got a lift back to High Wycombe, expecting they'd be able to collect the van
24:31in a few days' time. But 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.
24:54So 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.
25:12This 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.
25:26How can anything take that long to fix? We were dumbfounded.
25:30The stacker which was stuck was starting to seriously cost the business. As well as the
25:36finance payments for the first van, there was £694 a month in higher costs for the second.
25:43And 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.
25:52No. Has it caught fire? No. Has it been damaged? No. Well, it's not covered.
25:59But things got even worse. The 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,
26:15and from the German company Kleist Multi-Parking, which manufactured the stacker.
26:21It was difficult. Communication was not forthcoming. We were trying to get hold of
26:27anyone we could get an email or a phone number for, but 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.
26:42In 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 second-hand van.
26:57This is the new van that we bought a month or so ago. We got tired of spending all this money on
27:03van rentals, so 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.
27:22But they say, despite leaving messages for managing agent CBRE to arrange a collection,
27:28no-one has got back to them. So, some 28 months after first leaving their van at Rathbone Square,
27:36Mark and Steve are taking matters into their own hands.
27:39They've been a pain to get on the phone, so maybe us turning up in person might actually bear some
27:46better fruit. We're going to call in to the concierge and see if they can answer any of our questions.
27:58Hello. Hello there.
28:00Their van is literally metres away, but...
28:04So, you can't help me then?
28:06He 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.
28:19It's affected us financially, it's affected us emotionally, and it's stopped us from moving the
28:26business 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.
28:42Back in HQ, I'm rejoined by Harry Kind to weigh in on this story. But 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.
29:15I 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, and 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.
29:43I 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?
29:54It's been tough. We've had to go into an overdraft. You know, it's severely eaten into our company profits.
30:02It'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.
30:08Well, I have to tell you, Mark, that we're all with you in this story. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
30:13You're welcome. Nice to meet you.
30:15Thank you very much. Yeah, you too. Bye, Mark.
30:18Well, since filming, Mark tells us that he's still awaiting the outcome of his claim, which is in the hands of the lawyers.
30:24So there you see, Harry. Let'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.
30:54And 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. You 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.
31:23The building management company CBRE, Double Parking Systems, which is the UK distributor for the stacking system,
31:30and its manufacturer, Klaus Multiparking, all told us that while they sympathize with the situation all affected vehicle owners were in,
31:39they're not directly responsible for the operation of the parking system.
31:44CBRE also said it wasn't responsible for maintenance or repair,
31:49and that it had maintained regular contact with Mark and Steve throughout.
31:53Klaus Multiparking said that since it handed over the system in 2017,
31:57it has only been contacted in case spare parts were required,
32:01and that service and maintenance have been handled by Double Parking Systems.
32:06But Double Parking Systems said that since it's not the owner, manufacturer, or operator of the parking system,
32:14its role has been limited.
32:15In response to Mark and Steve's complaints about poor communication,
32:19it claimed that as of October 2024, CBRE had told it not to directly contact the pair,
32:27but that it would review its processes.
32:30With Mark and Steve now hoping the legal process will settle the whole thing,
32:34we'll be sure to keep right across their progress.
32:36Now, social media has its pros and cons.
32:47I look at it too much, but without it, I would feel far less informed about the world,
32:51and I wouldn't laugh so much.
32:53I suppose the problem is, these days, is whether you can trust what you're looking at.
32:57Is it the truth or is it not?
32:59I mean, can you suss out when you're getting something false?
33:02Not always, and actually it could be getting more difficult,
33:05because in early 2025, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram,
33:09announced a new approach to fact-checking.
33:12Later I'll be hearing what that's going to mean for the content that millions of us consume on its platforms,
33:17but first, here's a film we first broadcast last year,
33:21revealing the astonishing power of social media misinformation.
33:25I was working on the motorway as a traffic officer.
33:33It was an early shift.
33:34We saw a dog heading down the services exit slip roads.
33:40We managed to pull over to the hard shoulder,
33:43managed to get out of the vehicle.
33:44But unfortunately, the dog got hit from lane one across the exit service road
33:54and back onto the hard shoulder.
33:57It was quite harrowing, quite traumatic.
34:00I went and laid him on my lap.
34:01That traumatic incident on the M1 in Nottinghamshire in 2018
34:14had a happy ending for husky Akita Mix Thor,
34:18who not only made a full recovery from his injuries...
34:21Good boy.
34:22...but also forged a lifelong bond with traffic officer Hannah Weston
34:26becoming her beloved pet.
34:29I absolutely love him to bits.
34:30It wouldn't change it for the world.
34:33The dramatic rescue with its fairy tale ending went viral,
34:36with photos of Hannah and Thor splashed across the internet.
34:40They were circulating on Facebook,
34:42and then these photos were then later picked up by,
34:44I believe it was ITV and BBC later on down the line.
34:47The clamour soon died down, but then, out of the blue,
34:50four years later in December 2022...
34:54So that's me there.
34:55There's Sheringham, Worthing, Liverpool.
35:00Chester, Ipswich.
35:03These are kind of all, like, spotted or swapping cell sites on Facebook.
35:07And the posts kind of all read the same,
35:09saying, I've hit this putt with my truck
35:11in said different place.
35:14He's alive but can't stand.
35:15I feel so miserable.
35:16I took him to the vet.
35:17He is not chipped.
35:18I know someone is looking for him.
35:20Please bump this post to help me find the owner.
35:23And they are all different names, different people,
35:26different profiles,
35:28all putting the same information on with the same picture.
35:32The posts had resurfaced,
35:35with a false backstory attached
35:37that bore no resemblance to the truth of what happened
35:41and were being widely shared across the UK.
35:44It was a bit weird, confusing,
35:47and 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
35:56after they've shared the links?
35:58You know, have they gone on and given money
35:59or have they shared something that shouldn't have been shared?
36:04It turned out the images were being used in a scam
36:07known as bait and switch,
36:10as journalist Tony Thompson from fact-checking charity Full Fact explained.
36:15The first part is the bait,
36:16which is what gets people emotionally engaged.
36:19And then the switch is when they take that original post
36:22and change it to something that's for their benefit,
36:24such as a financial scam or a housing scam.
36:26And because the dozens of likes and shares
36:29from the emotionally charged posts stay on the edited posts,
36:33it gives the newly posted scam content
36:36more credibility to reel other people in.
36:40People will look at it and think,
36:41well, this must be genuine,
36:42because, you know, 10,000 people have liked it.
36:44How could it not be?
36:45Tony explained this was exactly what happened
36:48with the posts about Thor,
36:49some of which had hundreds of likes and shares.
36:53We did see that spreading quite widely for a while,
36:55and then we managed to find a few examples
36:58and block them on Facebook.
37:00A few of the posts that we saw did change to mostly to housing scams.
37:05A number of organisations, including Full Fact,
37:08are paid by Facebook's owner Meta
37:11to fact-check and block incorrect or misleading content on the platform.
37:16But in January 2025, all that changed after Meta announced
37:21it was phasing out third-party fact-checkers in the US.
37:25So what does that mean for the information being published on Facebook in the UK?
37:30Tony's back in HQ to tell us more.
37:32Thanks so much for coming back.
37:36So what system has replaced fact-checking in the US
37:38or is likely to replace it?
37:40Well, what Meta have done is they've adopted a system
37:42that's being used by X, formerly known as Twitter,
37:45called Community Notes.
37:46And what that involves is basically members of the public
37:49who are using the service coming together
37:51and getting a consensus on whether they think
37:53something is incorrect or not.
37:54And if enough people agree that something is incorrect,
37:57then a note can be published.
37:58And you've got an example from Meta, actually,
38:01and I'll show it.
38:02And you could just explain to me how this would work.
38:04So there's...
38:05Somebody's posted something.
38:06Explain the whole process.
38:08Yeah, so we've got the post saying that bats are completely blind
38:10and this note says that this is a common myth.
38:12So this is a note that someone will have written.
38:14They've put a URL in there going to another website
38:17which will confirm that information.
38:19And hopefully that's a reliable, sort of independent news site.
38:22This then gets submitted for other members of the website to vote on.
38:26And if enough people reach a consensus,
38:28saying that, yes, this new explanation is correct
38:31and this post needs to be altered because of it,
38:34then they can hit the rate button.
38:36And if enough people rate it the same way,
38:38then it will be published.
38:40Meta hasn't announced any plans
38:42to extend its community note system beyond the US.
38:45And for Tony, that's a relief.
38:48It's not as good a system as the system that we have now.
38:51The way that community notes work on X at the moment
38:54is that it's not about accuracy.
38:55It is about consensus.
38:56And it's whether or not enough of those people
38:58reach the same consensus,
39:00that's what decides whether or not the note gets published or not.
39:03And that's one of the problems,
39:04that 95% of notes at the moment don't get published
39:07because people don't reach a consensus
39:09because they continue to disagree.
39:11And I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment
39:13because you are paid some money by Meta to help fact-check.
39:17So you have an interest in promoting fact-checks.
39:20To a degree, but we're not against the idea of community notes.
39:22We just don't think it works as well as having independent fact-checkers.
39:26And yet, we and hundreds of other companies around the world
39:29are being paid by Meta to do this.
39:30But it doesn't mean that the system they're coming up with
39:33is better than what they have now.
39:35Tony has some examples of the work they do
39:38to help people make informed decisions
39:40about the content they're seeing.
39:42What sort of posts are you talking about?
39:45It can be absolutely anything from, you know,
39:46major international news stories or elections.
39:49It might be deep fake audio of someone like Sir Keir Starmer
39:53saying something that he just never said.
39:54Or it might be something health-related,
39:57like someone being told that they can do a certain thing to cure a disease.
40:00So these are the kind of posts that we look for.
40:02And when we find them, we take action.
40:04Given all the things we've discussed and you've talked about,
40:06what are your golden rules for people on verifying content they see?
40:11I think a lot of it comes down to taking your time
40:14before you just have a knee-jerk reaction and share something.
40:17So it's seeing whether it's been published elsewhere
40:19on trusted sources such as the BBC or fortune newspapers,
40:23to see what people are saying in the comments,
40:25whether anybody else is questioning it the same way that you are,
40:28to check the URL that it leads to,
40:30whether it is actually a legitimate website.
40:32Quite often we've seen sites being faked or duplicated.
40:36Really just, yeah, taking the time to think about it
40:38and think whether or not this is a genuine piece of footage,
40:42whether it's likely to be what it says it is.
40:44Really good thoughts. Thank you very much.
40:46We'll put all that information, appropriately enough,
40:48on our very own Facebook page.
40:50Tony, thank you very much.
40:52We contacted Meta about all of this, but didn't get a response.
40:57Meanwhile, X, formerly Twitter,
41:00didn't respond to Tony's criticisms of community notes,
41:02but did point us to guidance on its website, x.com.
41:12Well, I'm glad to say that Harry and Martin are back
41:14to answer your questions, so we're going to cut to the chase.
41:17And Martin, this one is for you.
41:18John Ellis has asked for help on behalf of his daughter,
41:21who has an ongoing dispute with her energy supplier.
41:24The energy ombudsman has found in her favour,
41:27but the energy supplier is still disputing the case.
41:29So where does she stand and where on earth can she go next?
41:33So it depends how far in the energy ombudsman's process this has got.
41:38A firm and you as a consumer can object
41:41after the initial view of the ombudsman,
41:43but when the ombudsman gives their final decision, that is it.
41:47The company is obliged to follow that.
41:49So if it's got to that stage,
41:51the company has a maximum of 28 days to pay out.
41:54Failing that, they can be reported to the regulator.
41:57It's very rare for these things to drag on,
41:59but this really should not be happening with the business.
42:02Harry, this one for you.
42:04Bernard Regan got in touch
42:06after his keys stopped working for his front door.
42:08So he contacted a locksmith
42:10to drill out the existing lock and fitter replacement.
42:13The bill came to £1,652, which he paid,
42:19but on reflection thinks this was a bit excessive.
42:22He asks if you have any advice
42:23about how he can check whether this was indeed a reasonable charge.
42:27That is a lot of money for what could be quite a simple task.
42:30I would say it's worth him getting in touch with a reputable locksmith,
42:35one through the Master Locksmith Association,
42:38which is a free resource that allows you to get a good locksmith.
42:41Get a quote for what that should have cost.
42:43Go back to that locksmith and say,
42:45this was way too much.
42:46And if they won't give a refund,
42:48at the end of the day,
42:49going to trading standards
42:50and making a complaint about this person
42:52who is basically ripping someone off.
42:54And on that firm but fair note,
42:56I'm afraid that's almost all we've got time for.
42:59If you've missed any of the tips in today's programme,
43:01from how to avoid extra charges when sending a parcel,
43:05to how to make sure you get the refund you're entitled to,
43:08then you can catch up on today's programme
43:10and many more on BBC iPlayer.
43:12And it's really worthwhile doing that.
43:14But for today,
43:15I want to say thank you very much indeed for joining us
43:17from everybody here on the team.
43:19Bye-bye.
43:20Goodbye.
43:42Bye-bye.
43:43Bye-bye.
43:44Bye-bye.
43:45Bye-bye.
43:45Bye-bye.
43:46Bye-bye.
43:47Bye-bye.
43:48Bye-bye.
43:49Bye-bye.
43:50Bye-bye.
43:51Bye-bye.
43:52Bye-bye.
43:54Bye-bye.
43:55Bye-bye.
43:56Bye-bye.
43:57Bye-bye.
43:58Bye-bye.
43:59Bye-bye.
44:00Bye-bye.
44:01Bye-bye.
44:02Bye-bye.
44:03Bye-bye.
44:04Bye-bye.
44:05Bye-bye.
44:06Bye-bye.
44:07Bye-bye.
44:08Bye-bye.
44:09Bye-bye.
44:10Bye-bye.
Recommended
38:49
43:57
1:04
1:29
1:59:55
59:04
41:21
29:21
47:59
31:11
48:16
30:03
48:16
48:10
1:18:02
1:02:19
Be the first to comment