Tag: confusion

20 million UK adults have ‘no idea’ about end of life care

  • 50 per cent have given no thought to planning if a terminal diagnosis was received –
  • The Rough Guide to the End of Life created and released as urgent free guide to end of life care –
  • Leading end of life charity Marie Curie highlights it supports people with any illness they are likely to die from, not only advanced cancer–

New polling has revealed that around 20 million / over a third (38 per cent) adults agree they do not know what end of life support and services are currently available in the UK, with half admitting they have given little thought to planning ahead if they were to receive a terminal diagnosis.

In response, Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end of life charity with a 75-year history, has partnered with Rough Guides to create the first ever UK ‘guidebook’ to end of life. The Rough Guide to the End of Life aims to help people navigate the end of life with advice and information from Marie Curie.

The charity aims to double the number of people it provides direct expert end of life care to by 2028 and highlight its services not only support those with advanced cancer, but any illness they are likely to die from including Alzheimer’s (and other forms of dementia), heart, liver, kidney and lung disease, motor neurone disease, and Parkinson’s.  

Despite end of life being inevitable for all, 40 per cent say they would not know how to access the information or services required to best support the needs of someone nearing their end of life.

While two thirds (64 per cent) state they would expect the NHS to refer them to all available resources if they were given a terminal diagnosis, however every five minutes someone dies in the UK without the care they need according to Marie Curie.

There is further confusion around where people can receive end of life care with 43 per cent of people surveyed not knowing care can be received from home. In fact, Marie Curie provides end of life care to people in their own homes. 

Available as a free downloadable guide at www.mariecurie.org.uk/withyou, The Rough Guide to the End of Life intends to help with ‘planning ahead’, offering tips on making a Will and sharing your preferences for your funeral to what to do with your social media and online accounts.

It also provides supportive guidance on how to cope with feelings if you or a loved one are at the end of life stage, alongside guidance on bereavement and grief.

The free guide also features relevant resources and organisations like Marie Curie who can provide support, and where and how to access end of life care when it is needed. 

Maria Novell Chief Innovation, Income and Engagement Officer at Marie Curie says: “It’s heart-breaking when we hear that someone didn’t know Marie Curie could help them or their loved one with the end of life.

“Wherever you are and whatever the illness, Marie Curie is with you to the end and the leading end of life charity. The Rough Guide to the End of Life is a physical demonstration of the support and guidance we provide for many people and families.

“We hope it becomes an invaluable family resource that shows people who are affected by any terminal illness that we’re there for them.

“By being better prepared and knowing how to access the right care and support services, whether for you or a loved one, will help improve a person’s chance of having a good end of life experience.” 

Kate Drynan, Senior Editor at Rough Guides says: “Our guides have supported millions of travellers over the decades, but we could not think of a more important journey than helping people to navigate their final chapter of life.

“We are proud to have partnered with Marie Curie on this important campaign and hope the first The Rough Guide to the End of Life gives support to many.”

To download the first The Rough Guide to the End of Life for free, visit the Marie Curie website www.mariecurie.org.uk/withyou

For more information about Marie Curie please visit: mariecurie.org.uk.  

The-Rough-Guide-to-the-End-of-LifeDownload

Some second dose appointments offered to teenagers in error

NHS Lothian has said that a number of second vaccination appointments have been mistakenly scheduled for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The health board said text message and appointment letters have been issued to the teenagers in Lothian which urge them to attend an appointment for a second dose of COVID vaccine, even though they may not be eligible.

At the moment, and in line with national guidance, 16 and 17-year-olds are only being offered one dose of the vaccine, unless they are clinically extremely vulnerable themselves, living with someone who is or are an unpaid carer.

However a data error has caused 2,500 text messages to be sent to teenagers in Lothian inviting them for a second dose. Many of those invitations may be entirely appropriate, but many will not.

As a result, a second text message has been issued urging the teenagers not to attend unless they are clinically extremely vulnerable themselves, living with someone who is or are an unpaid carer.

The situation is under investigation to establish what happened and how many letters may also have been sent via the national booking system to teenagers.

Pat Wynne, Director of Nursing Primary and Community Care, NHS Lothian, said: “I would like to apologise to all of those teenagers affected and for any confusion and inconvenience caused.

“All of those who received a text message have been contacted again with more information on what to do next. We don’t yet know how many letters have been issued, but we are investigating fully to establish what happened and how many people are affected.

“If you are eligible for a second dose – if you clinically extremely vulnerable yourself, living with someone else who is or are an unpaid carer – please double-check your appointment and make sure you receive that vital protection from a second dose.

“However we are really keen to make sure that other teenagers do not face a wasted journey to a vaccination centre or that they do not receive a second dose when it is currently not recommended for them.”

Confusion over travel insurance could leave travellers at risk of being out of pocket, says Which?

A lack of clarity from travel insurers over how much protection their policies offer for Covid-related disruption could lead to consumers losing money as international travel reopens, Which? research has found. 

New research from the consumer champion suggests that many travel insurance customers are being left with a false impression about the level of protection they would benefit from if the pandemic was to impact on their holiday plans. 

Which? believes some of this is down to poor communication by some travel insurance providers and the use of often confusing, blanket terms such as ‘Covid Cover’ or ‘Enhanced Covid Cover’ on insurers’ websites.

The consumer champion’s survey of over 2,800 travel insurance customers, conducted between February and March 2021, found that three in 10 respondents (29%) had committed to bookings or arrangements for international trips this year – with around one in 10 (12%) saying that while they’d not booked or arranged travel, they did have specific plans.

Which? asked the survey respondents if they believed that their policies would cover them in the following six scenarios: 

  • Cover for costs if – after booking my trip – the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) advises against travel to my destination;
  • Cover in the event that a local or national lockdown prevents me from travelling;
  • Cover in the event I can’t travel because I have to self-isolate at home because of NHS Test and Trace;
  • Cover in the event I can’t go on my trip because I’m diagnosed/test positive with COVID-19;
  • Medical cover if I catch COVID-19 overseas; and
  • Cover if my airline or holiday company postpones my travel but will only offer a rebooking or credit and not a cash refund.

Half of survey respondents (50%) believed that they’d be covered should the government’s travel advice change after a trip was booked, and nearly half (47%) thought their policy would cover them in the event that local or national lockdowns prevented them from travelling. Almost half (46%) believed their policy would cover them if their airline or holiday company postponed their travel, but wouldn’t offer a cash refund. 

However, when Which? analysed 73 travel insurance providers between October and November 2020, cover for those three such eventualities – particularly for when government travel advice changes – was very rare, with large discrepancies between what policies included. The consumer champion has been continuing actively to monitor Covid-related cover offered and believes little has changed to improve this situation in recent months. 

Since March 2020, most insurers have considered the pandemic a ‘known event’, and excluded FCDO cancellation cover from new policies and for newly booked trips. However, Which?’s survey found that customers with policies bought after March 2020 were more likely to believe that they were covered for this type of disruption than ones that had bought policies before then. 

For instance, two thirds (65%) of respondents that had bought travel insurance less than six months prior to participating in the survey believed that they would be covered if FCDO travel advice changed and advised against travel after they had booked their trip, whereas less than half (48%) of respondents that bought policies over a year ago did.

While some insurers give upfront information about how extensively they protect against Covid-related disruption on their webpages and in their FAQs, some providers only state key benefits that their ‘Enhanced Covid Cover’ provides, and are less clear about what is excluded.

Other providers describe their policies as covering a ‘range’ of Covid-related scenarios, and direct prospective customers to the FAQs for further detail. 

Which? submitted evidence to the Department for Transport (DfT) ahead of today’s publication of the Covid Passenger Charter calling for travel insurance providers to be clear about Covid-cover terminology.

Which? believes providers should present what is included and excluded in their Covid policies clearly on their websites, and not bury exclusions in their FAQs. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should be monitoring terminology used by travel insurers in their Covid-19 policies and marketing material to ensure they provide sufficient clarity. 

The FCA should also issue guidance to providers on the use of blanket terms such as ‘Covid Cover’ and ‘Enhanced Covid Cover’, which often overlook what kind of cover is not included – without qualifying them clearly. Doing so would help consumers to make a much more informed choice when booking a trip abroad, and could save them money. 

Which? is also urging the DfT to work closely with the Treasury and sector regulators including the FCA, Civil Aviation Authority and Competition and Markets Authority, as well as with industry, to ensure all travellers adequately understand their travel insurance cover and can access cover that protects them against FCDO advice related to the pandemic when international travel restarts.

Jenny Ross, Which? Money Editor, said: “The ongoing threat of Covid-related disruption means that  getting the right travel insurance for your holiday is more important than ever. 

“Without closer scrutiny from government and regulators of how clearly insurers present their policies, there is a very real chance that many travellers will be left out of pocket yet again this summer.”

Which? advice for consumers before booking travel insurance 

– When looking online for travel insurance policies, consumers should be wary of the variation between the amount of information insurers give on their websites about their core levels of cover, especially when it comes to how covered you are in scenarios related to the pandemic. 

– Terms such as ‘Covid cover’ or ‘Enhanced Covid cover’ mean different things for different insurers, so consumers should avoid making assumptions. Extra caution should be taken if information provided only lists the benefits of the policy, but does not describe what is not included. 

– Some protections will only apply to customers that insured their trip before the pandemic was declared last year.

– The best way to find out about what a policy offers is to spend some time reading the policy document – in particular check the medical expenses, cancellation and the policy’s general conditions and exclusions. If there are protections that you want from your travel insurance, but you find the policy document confusing, contact the insurer directly to confirm before booking.

– A quicker way to check key areas of your policy’s cover is to consult the Insurance Product Information Document, which is designed to provide information on key areas of cover and exclusions, although it will not tell you everything about the policy – so be sure to check with the insurer if you have any concerns. 

– Anyone who is booking a holiday should look for a flexible booking policy that covers them against countries changing from green to amber or red between booking and travel.

Consumers face delivery fee hikes amid post-Brexit confusion

Which? is calling on the government and businesses to make the new costs of buying from EU-based retailers clear and increase the public’s awareness of these changes so consumers are not left with unexpected fees or scammed into paying unnecessary charges.

For many consumers, import charges and confusing returns policies have made shopping with EU retailers after Brexit much more difficult than it used to be.

According to a Which? survey of more than 2,000 members of the public, two in five (42%) people who ordered products online between the end of the Brexit transition period on 1 January and 16 February experienced some issues.

While delays were the most common issue cited by those who ordered products online – with one in four people (24%) experiencing delays – the consumer champion’s research revealed that one in ten people (11%) have been asked to pay additional handling or delivery fees.

Which?’s survey showed the average charge was £41, with some people paying up to £300.

A lack of clear, accessible and well signposted information on how online shopping has been affected since the end of the Brexit transition period means many of these new charges and processes haven’t been communicated clearly and have come as a shock to consumers.

Which? is calling on the government and businesses to make these new costs clear to consumers so they are not left out of pocket.

The government must work to make the processes for how these costs are charged as simple as possible for both businesses and consumers. Businesses must also be upfront about whether the item is being imported from outside the EU and the charges consumers will have to pay if this is the case.

Which? has received multiple queries from consumers on this issue and has regularly published the most up to date information available on the charges consumers can expect when shopping from the EU.

Currently, UK shoppers are charged VAT at 20 per cent, which is applied to most goods. If the total cost of the order is more than £135 or a gift is over £39, VAT is often collected at point of delivery.

Online shoppers who buy items from the EU which originate from further afield – for example, from a seller based in China on an EU platform – and cost more than £135 will also have to pay additional customs duties. This is because the product originates from outside the EU, so the zero-tariff preference between the UK and EU does not apply.

The rules differ for shoppers in Northern Ireland due to its unique position of remaining within the EU’s Single Market, meaning it remains aligned with EU VAT rules for goods.

UK consumers can also be charged additional delivery fees for items from the EU. Each courier has a different policy on what they charge and how they ask you to pay.

Simon Potthast, a musician and producer, ordered a software and hardware package costing £603 from music production company Ableton for work. He then got an email from UPS when the parcel reached the UK port of entry saying there were import fees due for £112.55.

Ableton, who are based in Germany, added a message to the checkout on their website on 16th February 2021 warning that their physical products do not include VAT for UK consumers and that there may be a small paperwork fee on delivery. These fees would also apply to products brought from other companies in the EU.

However, when Simon placed his order on 18th March, he didn’t realise his order was being shipped from Germany or that he would incur additional charges.

He said: “I’ll be more careful now. If I’d known about the charges I would have found a UK distributor for the items so all the charges would have been included when I paid.”

There is also a risk that without clarity around the charges consumers should expect when shopping from the EU, people could be misled or scammed into paying extra costs.

A recent surge in ‘Royal Mail’ scam texts claiming that a parcel is being held due to an unpaid shipping fee shows that fraudsters are taking advantage of consumers’ uncertainty over post-Brexit import charges.

If in any doubt over texts or emails from courier services, consumers should not enter any personal details and should contact the delivery firm directly to confirm if it is genuine. Suspicious texts or emails can be reported to the courier and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

Some shoppers have also experienced difficulties when returning items to the EU. Which?’s research found an overwhelming nine in ten (87%) people who have returned items between 1 January and 16 February have experienced issues such as delays, unexpected paperwork or extra charges.

To make a return to the EU, consumers now need to complete a customs declaration form and to include the item’s description, weight and value. The customs charge is paid for by the recipient upon delivery.

However, this new process has not been made clear by all retailers, leaving some consumers unsure of how to send items back.

Daniele from Worthing had a frustrating experience with Footlocker EU, based in the Netherlands, after trying to return a pair of trainers that were initially delayed at customs.

UPS told him to fill out a returns form but he couldn’t find one on Footlocker’s website. He found a form on UPS’ website but was still unclear how to fill it out.

Eventually, he received help from UPS, but Daniele was disappointed with Footlocker’s service: “Retailers really need to have something in place to assist us – did I really need to go through all of this just to return something?”

Brexit has affected many aspects of how UK consumers interact with EU merchants. For example, if consumers have an issue with a product bought from an EU-based business – because it’s faulty or the pricing was misleading – they are very unlikely to be able to enforce their consumer rights through the UK courts as was previously the case. They may need to pursue the issue with consumer protection authorities or through the courts in the country where the business is based.

UK authorities will also no longer be able to take part in coordinated enforcement activities against companies who breach the law in multiple markets or have access to the same level of intelligence from the EU.

In Which?’s Beyond the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Priorities for consumers paper, the consumer champion details what the Trade and Cooperation Agreement means for UK consumers in a number of key areas and how the government should prioritise consumer interests.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert said: “Many consumers across the UK could have been surprised to learn how often they buy from EU based retailers. After Brexit, many were caught off-guard by the new delivery charges and returns policies for parcels from the EU – and left footing unexpected bills.

“Which? is calling on the government to make these charges clear for consumers so they are not surprised by the costs or, more concerningly, misled or scammed into paying extra charges. Businesses must also be up front about any extra charges so consumers can continue to shop across the border without any unnecessary complications.”

Packet racket! Recyling confusion

Two-thirds of branded grocery packaging not fully recyclable

Crisps, chocolate and cheese are among the worst foods for packaging recyclability, with brands including Pringles, Cadbury and Babybel failing to do their bit for the environment, a new Which? investigation has revealed.

The consumer champion analysed 89 of the UK’s best-selling branded groceries and found only a third (34%) had packaging that was fully recyclable in household collections. To make matters worse, around four in 10 (41%) items had no labelling to show if they could be recycled, leaving consumers none the wiser about how to dispose of them.

Which? looked at 10 different categories of items including popular brands of chocolate, fizzy drinks, crisps, yoghurts, drinks, cheese, bread loaves and cereals. Which? experts broke down each item’s packaging into its component parts, weighed them and assessed whether each piece could be easily recycled.

The recyclability of different types of groceries varied hugely. The worst category by some distance was crisps, with only three per cent of packaging recyclable in household collections. This included Pringles and their notoriously hard to recycle combined material tube. 

The tube’s plastic lid made it the only product in the category to have at least one component that was recyclable in household recycling. However it wasn’t labelled to say so and the tube design is far heavier than any other packaging in this category – so it would take more energy to transport.

The best of a bad lot in this category was a Quavers multipack. None of the individual packets of crisps were easily recyclable, but the outer bag, at least, was recyclable at supermarket collection points. However it wasn’t labelled to say so, meaning consumers could mistakenly throw it out with everyday rubbish.

While significantly better than bagged snacks, when Which? took apart and analysed cheese packaging it found that a third (34%) was not easily recyclable. Snack packs of Cathedral City and Babybel were packaged in plastic net bags, which are not only difficult to recycle but can also cause problems if they get caught up in the recycling machines accidentally.

Cheestrings were also found to be problematic, with packaging that was not recyclable in household collections.

At the other end of the spectrum, packaging for Dairylea Cheese Triangles, Seriously Spreadable Cheese and Laughing Cow triangles was all recyclable – but all had this important information missing from their labels at the time of testing. Philadelphia Soft White Cheese’s packaging is recyclable and was correctly labelled.

Among the chocolate snacks Which? looked at, almost a third of packaging was not recyclable. Favourites like four finger KitKats, Cadbury Bitsa Wispa, M&Ms, Cadbury Dairy Milk bars and Cadbury Twirl Bites were all found to not be recyclable in household recycling at all.

The Galaxy Smooth bar had 100 per cent recyclable packaging, but due to a lack of labelling risked being thrown out in the same way as its less eco-friendly counterparts.

None of the bread packaging Which? looked at was recyclable in household collections. But it was recyclable if taken to supermarket collection points alongside plastic bags. All of it was labelled.

The most recyclable category was fizzy drinks, which were found to be 100 per cent recyclable. All 10 items Which? looked at in this category were correctly labelled. 

Juice drinks were mainly recyclable in household collections, with the exception of Ocean Spray and Capri-Sun. Ocean Spray cartons are like Pringles tubes in that they are made of mixed materials that make them difficult to recycle in household collections, while Capri-Sun’s foil pouches are not recyclable.

In a separate survey, Which? found that the recyclability of grocery packaging is important to eight in 10 respondents (79%), and two thirds (67%) often or always look for recycling info on grocery packaging before deciding how to dispose of it.

Some brands are trialling more environmentally sound options. Pringles is testing a new recycled paper tube at several UK Tesco stores, which if successful could be pushed out more widely.

In response to Which?’s findings, some manufacturers said that food waste had a larger carbon footprint than plastic waste and claimed that moving away from traditional packaging to recyclable alternatives could lead to compromised, stale or damaged food. Some also said that their packaging was recyclable at TerraCycle collection points.

But Which? believes that a lack of consistency and hugely varied approaches to grocery packaging shows that some manufacturers could be doing a lot more to ensure the materials used to package their products do not end up in landfill.

The responsible use of the right materials to package food is just one part of the problem. In order to tackle unnecessary waste, products also need to be correctly labelled with clear instructions of how packaging should be disposed of.

The recurring inconsistencies Which? has found on the way groceries are labelled when it comes to recyclability shows how confusing it is to navigate for even for the most environmentally conscious consumers.

Which? is calling on the government to make recycling labelling simple, clear and mandatory, so that all consumers are able to make informed decisions when buying groceries.

Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said: “Consumers are crying out for brands that take sustainability seriously and products that are easy to recycle, but for any real difference to be made to the environment, manufacturers need to maximise their use of recyclable and recycled materials and ensure products are correctly labelled. 

“To reduce the waste that goes to landfill, the government must make labelling mandatory, simple and clear, enabling shoppers to know exactly how to dispose of the packaging on the products they consume.”