- 17 hours ago
- #realityshowusa
Rip off Britain Season 17 Episode 17
#RealityShowUSA
#RealityShowUSA
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00Today, how sending a parcel just like this one cost one man more than a thousand pounds
00:06in fees because 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
00:15being notified, it almost felt like theft.
00:19Plus the small business whose van got trapped in a car park for more than two and a half
00:23years.
00:24It's affected us emotionally and it's stopped us from moving the business forward as we
00:31would have liked to have.
00:32The fallout has cost them more than £45,000 they worry they may never get back.
00:38Helping you avoid expensive surprises.
00:41This is Rip Off Britain.
00:50Hello and welcome to Rip Off Britain where today our team here in Salford has been
00:54investigating your reports of unwelcome surprises which have really hit you hard in the pocket.
00:59Including the faulty set of headphones that haven't worked properly since they came out
01:04of the box.
01:05With the retailer refusing a refund, the experts in our advice clinic are here to see if they
01:11can help one man get his money back.
01:13I said this is not good enough.
01:15I 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, we've got
01:28the 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
01:44to charge our bank accounts without explicitly asking us first.
01:47It'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
02:08debited from one man's bank account.
02:10There have never been more ways to send a parcel.
02:15Forget queuing at the post office.
02:17Nowadays, you don't even need to leave your own home.
02:21For busy company director George from Essex, this is a godsend.
02:26In January 2025, he needed to return some vinyl flooring that he'd bought online that wasn't
02:32quite right.
02:34I'm currently in a rented property and the handyman said we need to rip up the existing
02:38vinyl in the hallway, so it just wasn't practical.
02:43George knew he'd take a hit on the cost of returning the flooring, and so when the seller
02:47recommended that he look at a website called Parcel Hero, where he could compare the prices
02:53of 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
03:13into the Parcel Hero website.
03:15It 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
03:27the cost.
03:28The £35.65 came out of my account, and then they came and collected the parcel within 24,
03:3548 hours, I think.
03:37One 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
03:52dimensions 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.
04:03I was like, whoa, it was a bit of a shock to the system.
04:08One, one, five, seven, ninety-five came out of my account.
04:13Yes.
04:14One thousand, one hundred and fifty-seven pounds, ninety-five pence had been debited by Parcel
04:20Hero.
04:21I just thought it was preposterous and left me very shocked.
04:26I just thought, it must be a mistake.
04:28And 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
04:37being notified just came straight out, so it almost felt like theft.
04:44George complained to Parcel Hero, but the company stood firm.
04:47It 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
04:58contacted 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
05:10a 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
05:19parcel to me.
05:21So I was like, how on earth is it costing me over a thousand pounds to send the same item
05:26back to him?
05:28But that wasn't enough.
05:30Parcel 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
05:40up, but still no joy.
05:43I feel I've provided a huge amount of evidence with my dialogue with the seller, so I really
05:50don'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,
06:02as well as its sister company Parcel Compare, including furniture upcycler Fiona Roberts from
06:08Surrey.
06:10She often sends bulky packages abroad.
06:12I know the importance of getting the dimensions right, I know the importance of the measurements
06:17being correct, because I know there are repercussions if it's not correct.
06:24In January 2025, she needed to dispatch a projector she'd sold online, and even took
06:29photos of the packaged measurements.
06:32Using the Parcel Compare website, she selected UPS as a courier, paid £43.75 and sent the parcel
06:40on its way.
06:43But 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.
06:56They've put here large parcel surcharge, they've put weight adjustment, but I'm not
07:01sure why they've done this.
07:03It just doesn't make sense to me.
07:05It's just really confusing why they've done this.
07:09Fiona was adamant that she hadn't underestimated the size and weight of her parcel.
07:14So she went back to Parcel Compare with the photos she'd taken before she'd shipped it.
07:19But the firm said that because the packing label wasn't visible in the pictures, it couldn't
07:24be 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
07:33her account without notifying her.
07:36But it pointed out the company's T's and C's, stating it can do just that.
07:41I'm a hard-working person, and them dipping into my hard-earned money, and just helping
07:48themselves, 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,
08:03Parcel Compare.
08:05Unable to provide the proof Parcel Hero required, he's currently over £1,000 out of pocket.
08:12I 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.
08:27Ah, poor George.
08:28Well, time for me to unpack all that, with the help of consumer rights brain box Martin James,
08:34and 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
08:47an additional fee of more than £1,000?
08:51Well, 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.
09:00But when it got to UPS and they took their own measurements, they told Parcel Hero that it was 277 centimetres.
09:08And that triggered another chain of events because 277 is higher than the maximum limit that UPS will carry.
09:16And 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
09:27the maximum limit is more than £800.
09:31That is a huge amount, isn't it?
09:34So how come in Fiona's case, the surcharge was much smaller?
09:38Well, it was £174, so still a considerable amount to be charged without any warning.
09:44But Parcel Compare, which is Parcel Hero's sister company, again said that the measurements of the
09:50parcel 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.
10:16That 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.
10:26But 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.
10:34But 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.
10:48To make sure, among other things, that its staff are safe.
10:52And that all packages can move through its network safely.
10:55And that network is mostly automated.
10:58I suppose that's understandable.
10:59But 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.
11:14Clearly, 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 authorization, according to the banking rules,
11:24then you can dispute that.
11:25And I've spoken to the Financial Conduct Authority about this.
11:28And 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,
11:45that they reserve the right to automatically take payment for additional charges.
11:50And that's precisely what they've done.
11:51But 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.
11:57I mean, you could buy in George's Parcel a ticket to pretty much any European destination on a plane.
12:03It 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
12:11Parcel comparison sites?
12:12Yes, we have. And it's important to note that Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare are not the only ones
12:17whose terms and conditions allow them to charge your card extra without asking you first.
12:23We checked some of their main competitors and two of them have similar clauses.
12:28By contrast, Interparcel specifies that for any amount that's more than £30,
12:33it will send you an invoice asking for payment. You can either pay that or you've got seven days
12:38to 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
12:48to 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
13:02on this one, I think, Katie. Here's a parcel. Now, I should say that this parcel is a little
13:07bit smaller than the one that George sent. His was a little bit longer. Right, so that's how we go
13:14with this. I'm going to need to get this full parcel in. No, it's not there yet.
13:20This is proving to be more than a one-person job.
13:24Hiya? 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?
13:36Just about visible? Yeah, that looks OK. Yeah.
13:38So, that took three people. Yes.
13:40A tape measure and lots of fiddling about. Indeed. And if it all goes horribly wrong...
13:45As it nearly did. Who do you complain to?
13:50The most important thing to bear in mind is that your contract is with the company
13:54that you pay the money to, and they are the ones who are responsible
13:57for addressing the complaints. If a company is trying to charge you additional money,
14:02then it has an obligation to prove that its measurements are correct. So,
14:07if 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
14:17the moral of the story is size matters. When we spoke to Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare,
14:23they told us that when customers sign up, they agree to a clearly stated billing process
14:29that allows the firm to apply adjustment charges automatically. And they stressed that they are
14:34the only firms in the sector to warn users before they proceed with a booking if the dimensions of
14:41their parcel are close to triggering a carrier surcharge. Parcel Compare added that Fiona was
14:46shown a specific warning message about this, including an explanation of the potential costs involved,
14:53as well as a clear instruction to take photos of the parcel with both the tape measure and the shipping
14:59label clearly visible. But as we've heard, because the shipping label wasn't included in those photos,
15:06it couldn't go through UPS's dispute process. Parcel Hero and Parcel Compare also said they do not
15:13profit from surcharges applied by couriers and that every appeal is investigated thoroughly. And
15:20following customer feedback, the firms have now changed their policy so that the highest levels of
15:26surcharges will not be automatically collected until after the appeal process. And I'm pleased to say
15:33there's even better news for George, who, after we got involved, was refunded the £1,157.95 he'd been automatically charged in full.
15:44In the advice clinic today, consumer rights expert Harry Kind is on hand to help Daniel Kasson from
15:54London. Daniel got in touch after purchasing brand new headphones for £100 from an online tech website
16:02called GearTech. But after just a couple of weeks use... I was on a webinar and they were working for the first
16:10minute, two, three minutes, and then they went off and no one could hear me. So I had to scrabble round,
16:16take them off, try and rearrange, as I had about 400 people online waiting for me to come back.
16:24Not exactly what you wanted? Not at all. I thought, I can't trust these headphones. I need to get new
16:29headphones and I'd like to send these back. And that's when I started the chewing and throwing
16:33with the company. And then I said, can I have a refund? And? And they said, well, no, because
16:38they're now used. We can't return them because they're used. GearTech told Daniel that because
16:44the headphones were personally used items, hygiene regulations prevented from accepting a return.
16:52I 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. They did eventually come back to me and say,
17:04we can offer you a 20% refund. And at that point I asked for their complaints procedure
17:10and they said I wasn't one. And 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
17:22trust and they don't work. What do you feel about it all, Harry?
17:24I love it when companies just make up bits of consumer law, pulling from this bit and that,
17:30and 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 GearTech. And for me, it bears all the hallmarks of dropshipping,
17:44where basically you set up a business, people order from what looks like a UK business. But as
17:51soon as you put in an order, that business just puts in a separate order with a company,
17:56maybe based in China, and sends that product directly to you. They have no warehouse,
18:02they own no products. Really, they're just a middleman. And I found one product which is
18:06particularly egregious. This is a little mini camera advertised as being £79.99 down to £49.99.
18:13A great 37% off. What a bargain. But if you do a reverse image search, you can find that
18:18identical camera available on Alibaba for as little as £1.13. And if that is the same camera,
18:27then that is, I think, a 5,000% profit margin. But regardless of whether GearTech is a dropshipper
18:35or not, Daniel still has rights. So this is a fault that appeared within 30 days. He reported it. So
18:44you're entitled to a refund. And because it's less than six months after receiving the goods,
18:49the burden of proof that this item was faulty when you got it is not on you. It's on them. And I'd also
18:56say, you know, even if they weren't broken, the rules around buying things online say that you
19:01have a right to change your mind when you've received something and get that item back for
19:06a full refund within 28 days. I would be very, very sceptical of the argument that this is a personal
19:14use item, particularly because you'd be within your rights to go to a shop in person and try on a set
19:21of headphones and, you know, then say, I don't want to buy these. And that's what you're buying
19:25headphones for, to put them over your ears. Exactly right. And regardless of that,
19:29they're faulty. He deserves a refund. Well, we tried to get in touch with GearTech
19:33and they acknowledged our email, but haven't been back in touch since. But hope is not lost,
19:39thanks 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
19:49company through Chargeback and just saying, I have been ripped off here. They're not following the law.
19:56I want that money back. I 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
20:06purchases. But with debit cards, there's an almost identical voluntary scheme that these card
20:12companies sign up to. And so there is a time limit on application with that, but it is really powerful
20:20and it's definitely something that you should use in this case. Thank you very much, Gloria.
20:24Bye-bye. Thank you very much, Harry. Yes, I'd like to add my thanks, Harry, as well.
20:27Thank you very much for your advice. Great. Happy to help.
20:30If, like Daniel, you've also been met with a refund refusal that doesn't seem right,
20:40or you just don't think a company is listening to you, maybe we can help. Email your story to
20:46ripoffbritain 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
21:00or put pen to paper if you like and send us a letter. The address is ripoffbritain,
21:05BBC Media City UK, Salford, M52LH. Please don't send any original paperwork as we won't be able to return it.
21:13Next. Now, if today's program is about unwelcome and costly surprises, then believe me, this next film is
21:20pretty hard to beat. Imagine leaving your car in the car park. You go shopping or something,
21:25whatever it is, for a few hours, and 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.
21:45I started this business back in 1988, making furniture. Mark's now a co-owner. We tend to make
21:54bespoke one-off furniture, kitchens, wardrobes, that sort of thing. We love what we do. We're
22:01passionate about what we do. We 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.
22:19Picking up materials, and then obviously when the furniture is finished,
22:23we're using it for delivering it to clients' houses. So it's one of our most used assets,
22:28really, in the business. Since the business makes lots of deliveries
22:33into London's congestion-charged zones, the pair decided that investing in an electric vehicle,
22:39which would be exempt from the charges, would be smart. So they splashed out and bought a new van
22:45on finance. It was probably the biggest purchase that the business has ever made. A new van which
22:51was just under £40,000 was a big, big investment for us.
22:57And just six months into their lease in December 2022, Mark and his apprentice were due to fit some
23:04furniture 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.
23:15We pulled up outside the car park and then gave the head concierge a call, who then lifted up the doors
23:21for the car park. But this was no ordinary car park. It was multi-storey with a difference. As these
23:28promotional images for the car park demonstrate, vehicles are driven in to access cabins at the base
23:34of a stacker before being moved into position automatically. The system allows a larger number
23:40of cars on top of each other when space is limited. There's no roads in there, no wheels turn. The
23:47platform that you've parked it on is picked up and shifted sideways, spun round and sent into a rack,
23:55where they stacked them up several high. It's an ingenious invention, as long as nothing goes wrong.
24:02Unfortunately, something did go wrong on the day that Steve and Mark parked there.
24:07The concierge of the block broke the news. He said, I'm really sorry, you can't have your van
24:13because the stacker is broken. We were both just in shock. And we honestly thought he was joking with us.
24:25At first, they sort of said, you know, we'll have a look at it over the weekend,
24:28and we'll be trying to get it fixed as soon as we can.
24:32The pair got a lift back to High Wycombe, expecting they'd be able to collect the van
24:36in a few days' time. But it soon became clear it was not going to be that simple.
24:43I called up the head concierge again on Monday morning to be told that it hadn't been fixed and
24:48that repairs and investigation was ongoing. And it might be a good idea to start to think about
24:54hiring a van, I guess, because we wouldn't have access to it for some time.
25:00So Mark and Steve did just that, hiring a van for what they expected to be a month or so,
25:06while anxiously awaiting news from Double Parking Systems,
25:09which is the UK distributor for the stacker technology. When news did come,
25:14more than six weeks later, it was from the concierge.
25:17This email says, good morning, Mark. We have been told by the engineers that parts are going
25:23to take up to 40 weeks to fit and repair. That's nine months.
25:28How can anything take that long to fix? We were dumbfounded.
25:36The stacker which was stuck was starting to seriously cost the business. As well as the
25:41finance payments for the first van, there was £694 a month in higher costs for the second.
25:48And their insurance wouldn't cover any of it.
25:52The van insurance, I phoned them up and they said, well, has it been stolen? No.
25:58Has 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.
26:11Meanwhile, Mark and Steve were trying to get some answers. First from Double Parking Systems,
26:17and then from the building's managing agent, CBRE, and from the German company,
26:22Klaus Multiparking, which manufactured the stacker.
26:26It was difficult. Communication was not forthcoming.
26:30We were trying to get hold of anyone we could get an email or a phone number for,
26:35but nobody was getting back to us.
26:38By the time we filmed with Steve and Mark, their van had been stuck inside the malfunctioning
26:43parking contraption for almost two and a half years. In that time, they say they've racked up
26:50more than £45,000 in solicitor's fees, van hire charges, and other costs. Not to mention the
26:57£12,500 they spent on another second-hand van.
27:01This is the new van that we bought a month or so ago. We got tired of spending all this money on
27:08van rentals, so took out another loan and bought this.
27:13In April 2025, the pair got in touch with BBC News. A few days later, they heard that the stacker had been
27:20fixed. And the pair were hopeful that they might soon be reunited with their van. But they say,
27:27despite leaving messages for managing agent 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
27:42into their own hands. They've been a pain to get on the phone, so maybe us turning up in person might
27:49actually bear some better fruit. We're going to call in to the concierge and see if they can answer
27:58any of our questions. Right. Hello. Hello there. Their van is literally meters away, but...
28:08So you can't help me then? He said that he couldn't give us any information. We've learnt nothing.
28:15A disappointing trip down to London and a disappointing drive home this evening.
28:21Mark and Steve leave empty-handed. It's affected us financially, it's affected us emotionally,
28:29and 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
28:45the blind, really. Back in HQ, I'm rejoined by Harry Kind to weigh in on this story. But first,
28:51an update from Mark. Mark, thank you so much for joining us today. We're gobsmacked here in the studio.
28:59So what's the position now? So we have got the vehicle back, although about a week after we got
29:06it back, it broke down, and we think it's due to having not been charged for over two years.
29:15Fixing 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
29:31stuck there. We've also included the depreciation of our van while it was trapped in the car park.
29:38And there's solicitors' bills as well. At the moment, we're being told we won't get a penny until
29:44they've done this forensic investigation and then have decided who's liable.
29:48I have to say, Mark, you seem remarkably calm about it all. But what has this frustration
29:54and this feeling and this experience done to you as individuals with you and your partner, Steve?
29:59It's been tough. We've had to go into an overdraft. 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.
30:12Well, I have to tell you, Mark, that we're all with you in this story. Thank you very much indeed
30:17for joining us.
30:18You're welcome. Nice to meet you.
30:19Thank you very much. Yeah, you too. Bye, Mark.
30:22Well, since filming, Mark tells us that he's still awaiting the outcome of his claim,
30:27which is in the hands of the lawyers.
30:29So there you see, Harry, let's try and break it down and just see who you think actually should
30:35be taking responsibility. Ultimately, I think the relationship that Mark has is with the car park
30:41operators. And if they haven't provided the service, i.e. looking after his car, getting it back to him
30:49when he needs it, then I think they have a responsibility to at least pay for the costs
30:55for this van until it can be freed. And we always say, you know, if you order something online
31:02and it gets lost in delivery, you don't have to complain to the delivery company. You complain to
31:07the 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. Thank you.
31:15Well, while Harry is confident that the responsibility here rests with the car park
31:21operator, 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
31:34the stacking system, and its manufacturer, Klaus Multiparking, all told us that while they
31:40sympathize with the situation all affected vehicle owners were in, they're not directly
31:45responsible for the operation of the parking system. CBRE also said it wasn't responsible
31:52for maintenance or repair, and that it had maintained regular contact with Mark and Steve throughout.
31:58Klaus Multiparking said that since it handed over the system in 2017, it has only been contacted in
32:04case spare parts were required, and that service and maintenance have been handled by Double Parking Systems.
32:11But Double Parking Systems said that since it's not the owner, manufacturer, or operator of the
32:17parking system, its role has been limited. In response to Mark and Steve's complaints about poor
32:23communication, it claimed that as of October 2024, CBRE had told it not to directly contact the pair,
32:31but that it would review its processes. With Mark and Steve now hoping the legal process will settle
32:38the whole thing, we'll be sure to keep right across their progress.
32:48Now social media has its pros and cons. I look at it too much, but without it,
32:54I would feel far less informed about the world, and I wouldn't laugh so much.
32:57I suppose the problem is, these days, is whether you can trust what you're looking at.
33:02Is 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,
33:12which 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
33:22platforms. But first, here's a film we first broadcast last year, revealing the astonishing
33:27power of social media misinformation.
33:35I was working on the motorway as a traffic officer. It was an early shift.
33:39We saw a dog heading down the service's exit slit roads.
33:43We managed to pull over to the hard shoulder, 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
33:59hard shoulder. It 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,
34:23Thor, who not only made a full recovery from his injuries, but also forged a lifelong bond with
34:30traffic officer Hannah Weston becoming her beloved pet.
34:33I absolutely love him to bits. Wouldn't change it for the world.
34:37The dramatic rescue with its fairytale ending went viral with photos of Hannah and Thor splashed
34:44across the internet. They were circulated on Facebook and then these photos were then later
34:48picked up by, I believe it was 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. These are kind
35:08of all like spotted or swap and sell sites on Facebook. And the posts kind of all read the same,
35:14saying, I've hit this put with my truck in said different place. He's alive, but can't stand. I feel so
35:21miserable. I took him to the vet. He is not chipped. I know someone is looking for him. Please bump this post
35:26to help me find the owner. And they are all different names, different people, different profiles,
35:33all 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
35:45of what happened and were being widely shared across the UK.
35:48It was a bit weird, confusing, and actually a little bit traumatic seeing it again,
35:55because you don't know what those people are using his photo for. You know, what's happened to those
36:00people after they've shared the links? You know, have they gone on and given money or
36:05have they shared something that shouldn't have been shared?
36:07It 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. And then the switch is
36:24when they take that original post and change it to something that's for their benefit, such as a
36:29financial scam or a housing scam. And because the dozens of likes and shares from the emotionally charged
36:35posts stay on the edited posts, it gives the newly posted scam content more credibility to reel other
36:43people in. People will look at it and think, well, this must be genuine because, you know,
36:4710,000 people have liked it. How could it not be? Tony explained this was exactly what happened
36:53with the posts about Thor, some of which had hundreds of likes and shares. We did see that spreading
36:59quite widely for a while. And then we managed to find a few examples and block them on Facebook.
37:04A few of the posts that we saw did change mostly to housing scams.
37:10A number of organisations, including Full Fact, are paid by Facebook's owner, Meta,
37:16to fact-check and block incorrect or misleading content on the platform. But in January 2025,
37:23all that changed after Meta announced it was phasing out third-party fact-checkers in the US.
37:30So what does that mean for the information being published on Facebook in the UK?
37:35Tony's back in HQ to tell us more.
37:37Thanks so much for coming back. So what system has replaced fact-checking in the US,
37:43or is likely to replace it? Well, what Meta have done is they've adopted a system that's being used
37:48by X, formerly known as Twitter, called Community Notes. And what that involves is basically members
37:53of the public who are using the service coming together and getting consensus on whether they
37:57think something is incorrect or not. And if enough people agree that something is incorrect,
38:02then a note can be published. And you've got an example from Meta, actually, and I'll show it.
38:06And you could just explain to me how this would work. So there's somebody's posted something.
38:11Explain the whole process. Yeah, so we've got the post saying that bats are completely blind,
38:15and this note says that this is a common myth. So this is a note that someone will have written.
38:19They'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. This then gets submitted for other
38:29members of the website to vote on. And if enough people reach a consensus saying that yes, this
38:34new explanation is correct, and this post needs to be altered because of it, then they can hit the
38:40rate button. And if enough people rate it the same way, then it will be published.
38:44Meta hasn't announced any plans to extend its community note system beyond the US. And for Tony,
38:51that's a relief. It's not as good a system as the system that we have now. The way that community
38:57notes work on X at the moment is that it's not about accuracy, it is about consensus. And it's
39:02whether or not enough of those people reach the same consensus, that's what decides whether or not
39:07the note gets published or not. And that's one of the problems that 95% of notes at the moment don't
39:12get 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
39:21help fact check. So you have an interest in promoting fact checks.
39:25To a degree, but we're not against the idea of community notes. We just don't think it works
39:28as well as having independent fact checkers. And yet, we and hundreds of other companies around
39:33the world are being paid by Meta to do this, but it doesn't mean that the system they're coming
39:38up with is better than what they have now. Tony has some examples of the work they do to help
39:43people make informed decisions about the content they're seeing. What sort of posts are you talking
39:49about? It can be absolutely anything from major international news stories or elections. It might be
39:55deep 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
40:03thing to cure disease. So these are the kind of posts that we look for. And when we find them,
40:08we take action. Given all the things we've discussed and you've talked about,
40:11what 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
40:21something. So it's seeing whether it's been published elsewhere on trusted sources such as
40:26the BBC or fortune newspapers. To see what people are saying in the comments, whether anybody else
40:31is questioning it the same way that you are. To check the URL that it leads to, whether it is
40:36actually on a legitimate website. Quite 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
40:46of footage, whether it's likely to be what it says it is. Really good thoughts. Thank you very much.
40:51We'll put all that information appropriately enough on our very own Facebook page. Tony,
40:55thank you very much. Thank you. We 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.
41:17Well, I'm glad to say that Harry and Martin are back to answer your questions. So we're going to
41:21cut to the chase. And Martin, this one is for you. John Ellis has asked for help on behalf of his
41:25daughter, who has an ongoing dispute with her energy supplier. The energy ombudsman has found in her
41:31favour, but the energy supplier is still disputing the case. So where does she stand and where on earth
41:36can she go next? So it depends how far in the energy ombudsman's process this has got. A firm and you
41:44as a consumer can object after the initial view of the ombudsman, but when the ombudsman gives their
41:49final decision, that is it. The company is obliged to follow that. So if it's got to that stage,
41:56the company has a maximum of 28 days to pay out. Failing 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
42:06with the business. Harry, this one for you. Bernard Regan got in touch after his keys
42:11stopped working for his front door. So he contacted a locksmith to drill out the existing
42:16lock and fitter replacement. The bill came to £1,652, which he paid. But on reflection,
42:25thinks this was a bit excessive. He asks if you have any advice about how he can check whether this
42:30was indeed a reasonable charge. That is a lot of money for what could
42:34be quite a simple task. I would say it's worth him getting in touch with a reputable locksmith,
42:39one through the Master Locksmith Association, which is a free resource that allows you to get a good
42:45locksmith. Get a quote for what that should have cost. Go back to that locksmith and say,
42:50this was way too much. And if they won't give a refund, at the end of the day, going to trading standards
42:55and making a complaint about this person who is basically ripping someone off. And on that firm
43:00but fair note, I'm afraid that's almost all we've got time for. If you've missed any of the tips in
43:05today's programme, from how to avoid extra charges when sending a parcel, to how to make sure you get
43:11the refund you're entitled to, then you can catch up on today's programme and many more on BBC iPlayer.
43:17And it's really worthwhile doing that. But for today, I want to say thank you very much indeed for
43:22joining us from everybody here on the team. Bye-bye. Goodbye.
43:25Bye-bye.
43:52Bye-bye.
43:55Bye-bye.
43:57Bye-bye.
Recommended
1:09
0:21
0:21
57:48
45:55
0:21
52:40
1:58:53
1:46:40
43:58
39:17
45:54
58:07
43:15
42:59
43:30
43:05
42:01
Be the first to comment