Apple’s Airpods Pro have been named Which?’s product of the year for 2020, in a diverse list that includes a £12 kettle, a camera with a swivelling display for selfie-addicts and even a robot vacuum cleaner that empties its own dust bag.
The consumer champion’s experts nominated their favourite products launched or tested over the last year – whittling down 3,500 products to just 50 based on exceptional innovation, sustainability or value for money.
The diverse list of high-performing tech, cars and home appliances is led by the Apple Airpods Pro (£219), with Which?’s judges deciding they improve the already exceptional standard AirPods in every way – going as far as to say it is “remarkable that tiny earpods can create such versatile, powerful and spatial sound”.
By adding a rubber earpiece, Which? experts found that Apple has created a more secure fit which makes them better at cancelling outside noise, more comfortable and crucially, difficult to lose – which is welcome when a single replacement costs £85.
In second place was the Halo Capsule (£249), a recyclable cordless vacuum that comes with enough capacity and extra disposable bags to fill a bathtub with dust.
Which? researchers found that this exceptional vacuum not only cleans brilliantly, but every component of the carbon fibre machine is recyclable. Every two years it can undergo a full service where the old battery will be recycled and replaced with a new one, if needed – a significant step forward for sustainability.
Completing the top three is another environmentally-friendly pick, the Kia Soul (£37,295). An electric vehicle (EV) praised by experts for its long range and efficient battery. It lasted 242 miles in Which? independent tests, enough to get from London to York with enough energy left over in the battery to find a parking space in town.
The cheapest product in Which?’s top 10 is a wireless security camera, the TP-Link Casa KC200 (£80), which came in at number seven. While it performed almost as highly as the top-scoring wireless security camera in Which?’s tests, it costs two thirds less and doesn’t scrimp on the quality of the footage it produces.
Among the more quirky products in Which?’s list and in 42nd place, is the iRobot Roomba S9+. While pricey at £1,500, this robot vacuum is not only excellent at cleaning, earning a full five stars in this category Which? testing but it also empties its own dust bag. Innovative and high-scoring, Which? experts said, “it had to get in the top 50.”
Despite costing just £12, Asda’s George Home Cream Kettle GPK201C-19 made it into Which?’s top 50 products of the year at number 47. Experts said it was a bit noisy, but with its simple and stylish appearance, it represents “phenomenal” value.
In 50th place on the list, the Sony ZV-1 camera (£699) has a swivelling selfie display, making it perfect for vloggers who want to look perfect for their next YouTube upload. It produces “superb” quality videos and is only slightly let down by the quality of still images it shoots.
Harry Rose, Editor, Which? magazine, said:“Apple’s new Airpods Pro edged out some fantastic contenders by taking a product that was already exceptional and improving it to the point of near-perfection.
“It is a huge task to sift through the thousands of products Which? tests each year and whittle it down to just 50 – but this year’s list showcases the very best in high-tech gadgets, advances in sustainability and value for money products proving there are great buys out there for anyone prepared to do their research.”
With a slew of one-star ratings and concerns over hygiene and cleanliness, Britannia has once again been ranked the UK’s worst hotel chain, according to Which?’s annual survey.
Described by one guest as a “filthy hovel” and another as “by far the dirtiest hotel room I have ever stayed in”, Britannia props up the table in Which?’s rankings of large UK hotel chains for its eighth consecutive year.
Which? asked more than 4,000 people to rate their experiences at UK hotels, broken down into large chains and small and medium-sized chains. Guests were asked to rate the hotels on a range of criteria, including bedrooms, bathrooms, cleanliness, customer service, and value for money.
Britannia received a dismal customer score of 37 per cent and failed to score more than two stars in any of the criteria ranked by guests, with one-star ratings for its bedrooms, bathrooms, and communal areas and facilities. It was the only hotel in the survey to receive one star for cleanliness, and despite being one of the cheapest hotel chains in the survey at an average of £58 per night, guests still only gave Britannia one star for value for money. One of the most scathing reviews submitted to Which? by a Britannia guest was unprintable.
When Which? visited the Folkestone Britannia, also known as the Grand Burstin, as part of a separate investigation into hotel hygiene, researchers found stray hairs and stained towels upon an initial inspection. Following further tests using UV fluid and germ powder, researchers also found surfaces that had not been thoroughly cleaned between stays. At the chain’s Brighton hotel, the Royal Albion, Which? conducted swab tests that revealed traces of enterococci bacteria on the toilet seat and bathroom door handle.
When presented with Which?’s findings, Britannia said: “We are totally committed to providing a safe environment for visitors. We have so far spent around £2 million on COVID-19 precautions, but we accept there is more to do.”
Cleanliness aside, the chain still managed to disappoint. In the standard room in the basement of the Folkestone Britannia that Which? checked into, there was graffiti carved into the ageing wardrobe, pillows “flimsier than bookmarks”, and broken glass on the carpet at breakfast.
Also at the bottom of the table, but still scoring significantly higher than Britannia, were Mercure (60%) and Days Inn Hotels (62%). Both only managed to muster three stars across most criteria, but when it came to cleanliness, Which?’s swab tests came back without any cause for concern.
At the other end of the table – both in terms of performance and price – was Sofitel, the luxury chain with three London properties at Heathrow, Gatwick and St James.
At a steep £148 a night on average, guests did comment on the premium price paid for a night at a Sofitel hotel – but many told Which? it was worth it, commending its “outstanding service” and “impeccable cleanliness”. One guest told the consumer champion their Sofitel room was “probably the best hotel room I have ever occupied.”
However, when Which? visited the Sofitel St James to conduct swab tests as part of its hotel hygiene investigation, it also found low levels of faecal enterococci on the toilet seat of the room it was checked into. Sofitel said it believed this to be an isolated issue, but conducted a “thorough review of its cleaning protocols” in response to Which?’s findings.
With the exception of value for money, where it scored three stars, the luxury chain scored five stars in every category, and received an impressive customer score of 86 per cent. It is also the first chain to have knocked Premier Inn off the top spot in five years, suggesting that guests were happier to throw a bit of money at their hotel stays this year, given the surge in popularity of UK holidays following the pandemic.
In response to Which?’s investigation into hotel hygiene, a spokesperson for Accor/Sofitel said: “We have developed some of the most stringent hygiene and prevention measures in the hospitality industry to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our guests.
“These protocols have been further intensified in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and include more frequent cleaning of hotel rooms and public spaces with hospital grade anti-viral cleaning products and disinfection of all high touch areas. While we are pleased that these measures are reflected by the survey’s other scores, we are surprised and disappointed by the swab test result.
“Whilst we believe this to be an isolated issue we have undertaken a thorough review of the hotel’s cleaning protocols. It should be noted that our guests have independently awarded this hotel a maximum rating on its standards of cleanliness and the hotel has also passed an independent audit by an EHO consultant.”
Premier Inn came in just below Sofitel with a score of 82 per cent and was praised for its reliable quality at a reasonable price. Guests frequently described the rooms as clean and comfortable, with countless respondents telling Which?, “you know what you’re getting [with Premier Inn]”.
Both Sofitel and Premier Inn were named Which? Recommended Providers, along with Holiday Inn Express and Hilton Hampton, on account of their high scores and their approach to refunding customers over the pandemic.
When Which? asked people to rate their experiences at small and medium-sized hotels, it was Warner Leisure (81%) and Hotel Du Vin (77%) that came out on top, with both also being named Which? Recommended Providers.
Abode hotels received the lowest score of the eight small and medium-sized chains ranked in the survey, but still with a respectable score of 63 per cent, and four-star ratings for cleanliness, customer service and value for money.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“It appears that not even a global pandemic could force Britannia to clean up its act. At best, it’s drab and dated, and at worst it’s downright filthy – and after eight years at the bottom of our survey, our message is loud and clear: avoid these hotels.
“While Premier Inn remains a firm favourite, it’s clear that this year, UK hotels have become more than just a place to lay your head, but a destination in themselves. With fewer of us travelling abroad this year, our survey shows that when it comes to holidaying at home, we’re quite happy to pay more for a little luxury.”
Parcels lobbed over fences, forged signatures and packages chewed almost beyond recognition by foxes were just some of the Christmas delivery disasters endured by online shoppers – as new Which? research reveals two in three had at least one issue with their deliveries last year.
The consumer champion surveyed more than 2,000 people about their experience with deliveries during Christmas last year and around two-thirds (69%) said they had at least one problem.
Among the delivery problems experienced by survey respondents were parcels damaged after being thrown over fences, a clothes delivery tossed in the food waste bin and a parcel left out in rain, where it was chewed up by foxes.
One respondent also told Which? that their signature was forged by a courier to suggest they had personally accepted the delivery, when in fact it had been left on their doorstep even though they were inside waiting for it to arrive.
Nearly one in five (18%) told Which? their delivery arrived late last year, while one in ten (11%) said they did not receive their delivery in time for Christmas. These included a grandfather who had to buy extra gifts for his grandson because the toy robot he had ordered failed to arrive on time.
Almost a quarter (23%) who shopped online last Christmas said at least one delivery did not arrive at all – leaving them to face the inconvenience of having to apply for a refund or buy the product again.
One respondent said a laptop they had ordered never arrived but had apparently been signed for the month before.
Many consumers have been forced to rely on online retailers and deliveries this year due to the pandemic and demand is expected to be higher than ever during the festive season. In a separate survey, Which? asked more than 13,000 members about their experience with major couriers between March and August.
The consumer champion asked members how satisfied they were with couriers that delivered the most recent item they had ordered. They rated firms in a range of categories including length of time between ordering and delivery, delivery time slot offered, communication received by the delivery company, social distancing measures by the delivery driver and where the parcel was left.
UPS was consistently the worst courier for keeping customers satisfied across key categories.
One in four UPS customers said they were unhappy with the delivery slots offered (23%) and how the company communicated with customers (24%), and one in 10 (11%) said they were not pleased with where the delivery driver left their order.
One UPS customer told Which? they received a smashed computer after it was delivered upside down by UPS, despite a clear “this way up” label on the box.
A UPS spokesperson said: “At UPS, we deliver an average of 20 million parcels per day around the world and pride ourselves on our service quality and reliability. As a matter of company policy, we do not comment on third party research.
“The safe handling and delivery of all parcels in our care is our absolute priority. We take any damage to goods very seriously, and deeply regret any upset and inconvenience caused to this individual.
“The service described does not appear to meet the high standards we expect from all our staff and we would therefore like the opportunity to investigate the matter internally.”
When it came to how quickly couriers delivered orders, Amazon was the best with nine in 10 (92%) people satisfied with the length of time between ordering and delivery.
For communication with customers, Amazon (85%) also finished joint top with DPD (86%), with the highest proportion of satisfied customers in this category. DPD was also the best delivery firm for delivery slots, with more than eight in 10 (82%) happy with the slots offered for their most recent delivery.
Royal Mail had the most satisfied customers in the category for where deliveries were left, with more than nine in 10 (93%) happy with where the driver left their most recent delivery. All delivery firms performed well when it came to maintaining social distancing guidelines.
With Christmas just weeks away, more people than ever will be shopping online and relying on delivery firms to get their gifts – so it is important for consumers to know their rights if a delivery arrives damaged, late or not at all.
Customers are entitled to a replacement, repair or refund if a delivery arrives faulty. Customers can also get a refund from their retailer if they paid extra for a special delivery that then arrived late.
If a delivery fails to arrive, customers should immediately contact the retailer, which should either help track down their order or send a replacement.
Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said:“Christmas is when we really want parcels to arrive on time – but unfortunately it’s also peak time for late, damaged or missing deliveries and we have heard stories of shockingly bad service from the big courier firms.
“With more people than ever expected to shop online this Christmas, it is worth getting your orders in as soon as possible. It’s also important to remember that retailers are responsible for ensuring orders arrive in a reasonable timeframe, so don’t be afraid to make a complaint if you are having problems.”
Six essential consumer rights tips if your delivery hasn’t gone to plan:
If your order is late, missing or has turned up damaged we recommend that you complain to the retailer – even if you think it’s down to poor service from the courier, because your contract is with the retailer.
If you paid extra for special delivery and your order arrived later than agreed you can claim back the extra delivery cost as the service wasn’t delivered.
Be aware if you give permission for your delivery to be left in a specified safe place or received by a nominated neighbour and something goes wrong, you will still be considered to have received the delivery. Think very carefully about those options when you’re making a purchase.
If your order arrives damaged or faulty, you have a right to refuse it and get a refund, repair or replacement. Understand your next steps if your goods arrive damaged in the post.
Your delivery must be made without undue delay and within 30 days from the point of purchase unless you and the retailer agree otherwise, this is stipulated by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
You can also cancel (within 14 days of receipt of goods) an order for most items ‘bought at a distance’ – for example, online, over the phone or a mail order catalogue.
Shoppers are being urged to do their research before they part with their cash this Black Friday as a new Which? investigation reveals that the vast majority of ‘deals’ are the same price or cheaper before the day itself.
The consumer champion tracked the prices of 219 popular products advertised as ‘Black Friday deals’ across Amazon, AO.com, Argos, Currys PC World and John Lewis and found that almost nine in 10 (85%) of these so-called ‘deals’ were actually cheaper or the same price in the six months before.
In fact, when Which? compared a year’s worth of prices for these products, which included home and tech goods such as headphones, fridge freezers and soundbars, only three (1%) out of the 219 items tracked were at their cheapest price of the year on Black Friday.
Out of the retailers Which? looked at, Currys PC World was the most likely to have its Black Friday ‘deals’ cheaper or the same price in the six months before. This was the case for 47 out of 49 (96%) products.
John Lewis was not far behind with 70 of the 78 (90%) Black Friday deals Which? tracked cheaper or the same price ahead of time.
AO had a total of 38 out of 44 (86%) Black Friday deals included in Which?’s research cheaper or the same price before the big day.
When it came to the Black Friday deals tracked at Argos, Which? found 15 out of 18 (86%) had been cheaper or the same price in the six months before Black Friday.
Amazon came out the best out of the retailers Which? looked at but still had just over half (57%) of products analysed cheaper or the same price in the six months before Black Friday.
Among the examples, Which? found that at Currys PC World a set of Bose Quietcomfort headphones was £249 on Black Friday but had been cheaper or the same price on at least 15 occasions in the six months prior.
Which? found the same problem with a pricey De’Longhi Primadonna Coffee Machine at John Lewis. Costing £1,285 in the Black Friday sale, the machine had been at the same price or less on at least 35 occasions in the six months before, dropping to less than £1,200 on several days in May and June 2019.
Which? also found that at AO a Zanussi fridge freezer was £549 on Black Friday but had been sold at that price on 153 days in the six months before Black Friday – 84 per cent of the time.
While many of the items tracked by Which? had been cheaper or the same price in the six months before Black Friday, price drops were even more widespread after the day itself.
This applied to almost every single product from AO, Argos, Currys PC World and John Lewis included in the analysis and nine in 10 (90%) of the products Which? tracked on Amazon.
Among the sales season duds Which? did uncover a few great deals, including some Bose Soundsport headphones on Amazon that were on sale at £45 on Black Friday 2019, half the maximum price of £90 and, according to Which? data, the cheapest price of the year.
Meanwhile at Amazon, Which? also found a bargain on a Shark Handheld Vacuum cleaner at £97 on Black Friday 2019, just over half the £180 maximum, the cheapest price of the year.
Which?’s research shows that while a handful of offers might be genuine, the vast majority of Black Friday deals are not necessarily cheaper than at other times of the year – and those who hold out a little longer will often end up paying the same price or even less.
Which? is urging shoppers to not be tempted to impulse buy this year, and to make sure they do their research to assess whether the price and quality of the product they are considering makes it the right deal for them. Even if a deal is advertised as time-sensitive, chances are it will not be the last opportunity to buy at that price.
Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said: “With many of us stuck at home this Black Friday it might be tempting to scour the sales for a bargain, but we’ve found that you could get the same deal – or an even better one – at another time.
“Deals that look too good to be true often are, so don’t fall for time-limited offers and if you are looking for something in particular, do some research first. That way you’ll know a genuine bargain when you see one.”
Which? tracked the prices of 219 popular home and tech products over the course of a year, for six months before Black Friday 2019 and six months after.
The below table shows the number of products tracked and whether they were the same price or cheaper before and after the sales event.
In August 2020, a Which? survey found that 84 per cent of respondents were not planning on buying anything this Black Friday and those who were said they were taking a more considered approach by either tracking prices of coveted items or using price comparison sites.
However, internet industry body IMRG last week reported that the combination of Black Friday discounts and coronavirus restrictions will make November a record-breaking month for online spending in the UK. Their report suggested that online sales were up 61 per cent in the first week of November compared with the same period last year.
Black Friday example ‘deals’
AO -Hotpoint SA2844HIX 60cm 71L Built In Electric Single Oven
You could have bought this built-in oven for £219.99 on Black Friday at AO, but if you’d bought it in the six months prior then you might have saved yourself a tenner – it was £209.99 on at least seven days. In the six months after the sale, it was £209.99 on at least 80 days, and was cheaper or the same price for a total of 134 days after the sale.
AO – Zanussi 178Cm Integrated Frost Free Fridge Freezer ZBB28651SV:
Black Friday price was £549. It was priced at £549 on 153 days in the six months before Black Friday, and was cheaper or the same price on 46 occasions after the sale.
Argos – GoPro Hero7 White Action Cam
This action camera was £129.99 at Argos on Black Friday, and was the same price for the week before the sale day. In February 2020, it dropped to £119 for 11 days before staying at £129.99 – the same as its Black Friday price – until at least the end of May. In total, it was cheaper or the same price as Black Friday on at least 154 days in the six months following the sale.
Currys PC World – Samsung RS50N3513S8 Freestanding American Style Fridge Freezer
Last Black Friday, the silver version of this Samsung Fridge Freezer cost £849 at Currys PC World. Prior to the sale day, it was priced at £799 on at least 15 days – meaning a saving of £50 compared to Black Friday. Following the sale, it was £849 or cheaper on at least 27 days.
Currys PC World – Sonos Playbar Soundbar
This stylish soundbar was £649 at Currys PC World last Black Friday, but had been the same price for at least 19 days in October 2019 too. After the sale day, it was the same price or cheaper on at least 129 days – including dropping to £599 over Christmas and new year, meaning shoppers could have saved £50 by holding out a little longer. For those prepared to play the waiting game, it was priced at £499 on several occasions during April and May 2020 – a saving of £150 compared to Black Friday.
Currys PC World- Bose Quietcomfort 35 Ii Black QC35IIB: was cheaper or the same price as Black Friday on 15 occasions in the six months prior to Black Friday, and 66 days after the sale.
John Lewis – Brother MFC-J6930DW Wireless Inkjet Printer
On Black Friday, this Brother printer was £199.99 at John Lewis. In the six months before the sale day, it had been priced at £199 on at least 79 occasions. John Lewis told us that this was due to its price matching scheme. It was cheaper or the same price on 72 days in the six months after the sale, too.
John Lewis – The De’Longhi Primadonna Elite Experience Bean To Cup Coffee Machine
The silver version of this expensive coffee machine was £1,285 at John Lewis in the Black Friday sale, but had been at the same price or less on at least 35 occasions in the six months before. This included costing less than £1,200 on several days in May and June 2019.
John Lewis – The Sonos Beam Compact Smart Sound Bar with Voice Control, Black, was cheaper than its Black Friday price (£399) on 71 occasions in the six months before Black Friday, dropping to £369 for 14 days in July. It was cheaper or the same price on 184 days in the six months after the sale.
Amazon said: ‘We seek to offer our customers great value thanks to low prices all year round as well as a number of fantastic seasonal deals events. Our Black Friday Sale is about thousands of deals on a huge selection of products from every category across the site, at a time of year when we know saving money is important to our customers. And the best thing about shopping online is that customers can easily compare prices, allowing them to make an informed purchase decision.’
An AO spokesperson said: ‘We offer great deals for our customers all year. Last year’s Black Friday event had over 9,000 fantastic and fair offers for customers and we expect this year to be even bigger.’
An Argos spokesperson said, ‘Our Black Friday event gives customers access to hundreds of products at their lowest ever price. They may also be part of sales and promotions we run the following year.’
A Currys PC World spokesperson said: “We have 1000s of deals in Black Friday every year, and aim to give our customers the best value with over 45% at their lowest price ever this year. Throughout the year we are also continuously price-matching and have additional sales to ensure we keep our promise of amazing tech that is affordable and accessible. Also as we are constantly looking to bring customers the latest and most innovative tech it means over time some of our older products will generally reduce in price as they are replaced by newer technology with improved features.”
John Lewis said: ‘As a participating retailer in Black Friday, we offer hundreds of deals across technology, home, beauty and fashion. In addition to the variety of offers we have instore and online during the promotional period, our Never Knowingly Undersold price promise means that we continuously monitor and match the prices of our high street competitors throughout the year. As such, we offer our customers the best value on the high street all year round, including during the Black Friday period.’
Platforms fail to adequately protect users, says Which?
Almost one in 10 people (9%) have fallen victim to online scam ads via social media sites or search engines as platforms fail to tackle a flood of bogus ads posted by fraudsters, new research from Which? reveals.
The consumer champion is calling for the government to give tech giants greater legal responsibility for preventing scam content from appearing on their sites, after hundreds of people shared their often distressing stories of falling victim to convincing purchase scams.
A purchase scam is when a consumer is misled into paying in advance for goods that are never received or are not at all as described. They are increasingly common on popular websites and platforms with criminals creating fake websites and documents that seem genuine to trick their victims.
With 43 million adult social media users in the UK, Which?’s research suggests that some 3.8 million people might have fallen victim to a scam from an advert that appeared on their social media feed.
When Which? separately asked for victims of social media purchase scams to get in touch, its researchers heard from more than 200 people in just 48 hours.
One victim, Christine, ordered a CBD oil product advertised on Facebook that had been falsely ‘endorsed’ by Fern Britton and David Attenborough. She was promised a sample for £2.50, but £170 was later taken from her bank account.
She told Which? the money was “more than my weekly pension and I’m so upset. It happened weeks ago but I can’t stop thinking about it”. Christine is worried she faces a fight on her hands to get her money back because she did receive a sample, although she doesn’t think it is genuine CBD oil.
Which? surveyed 2,000 members of the public, asking those who use social media and search engines about their experiences of adverts on these platforms. It found that nine per cent of social media users had fallen victim to a scam ad on social media feeds. The same proportion of search engine users also reported falling victim to a scam ad on those.
It also revealed that six in 10 (64%) social media users and almost six in 10 (57%) search engine users said they were confident they could spot these scams. But previous Which? research has suggested this confidence is misplaced – which could create a perfect breeding ground for scams.
Louise from Birmingham regularly shops at Ted Baker and started seeing convincing ads for what she thought was a Ted Baker Outlet store on Twitter over a couple of days. She visited the site linked to the advert and paid £75 for a discounted bag and shoes.
She never received her order and is still waiting for her bank to decide whether it will refund her. The retailer’s Twitter account had already been suspended before Which? flagged it. “I will never, ever buy anything I’ve seen on a social media advert again,” she said.
Ryan, 24, thought he was buying a keyboard and mouse through a retailer advertising on Google’s shopping results. He paid £65 but ended up receiving a cheap iPhone case instead. “To get a refund I had to return the case to an address in China at a cost of £35, which is obviously ridiculous,” he said.
Ryan paid with PayPal, which is still investigating. He said he didn’t report the advert to Google because he did not know how to. Which?’s researchers found that Google’s tool for reporting adverts in its search results involved filling in a long form which could put people off using it.
While the sums of money involved in these scams may appear small to some people, Which?’s investigation suggests that online ad scams are happening on an industrial scale. They also provide fraudsters with sensitive information about victims that could potentially be used to mount future attacks.
Over the last 12 months, Action Fraud says that it has received 83,822 online shopping fraud reports, with reported losses reaching around £62.3 million over that period.
Which? believes social media sites and search engines must be far more proactive in preventing scam ads from appearing on their platforms in the first place, particularly as people are more reliant on shopping and socialising online than ever this winter.
Platforms have launched initiatives to deal with scam adverts but many of them rely on users having to report these themselves. This leaves lots of people still exposed to scam ads and at risk of falling victim before they are reported and taken down.
Which?’s investigations continue to expose the harms consumers face when shopping and socialising online. The consumer champion is calling for online platforms to be given greater legal responsibility to prevent scam content appearing on their platforms. The government has an ideal opportunity to deliver this in the upcoming online harms bill, but if it is not included, ministers must set out proposals for new laws to protect consumers from online scams.
Adam French, Consumer Rights Expert at Which?, said:“Our research suggests that online purchase scams are taking place on an industrial scale, with scam victims suffering significant financial and emotional harm when they are targeted by fraudsters.
“Despite being known for innovation, social media sites and search engines are lagging behind scammers, seemingly taking little responsibility for stopping misinformation and harmful content from reaching their users.
“The government must step in and protect consumers by giving online platforms more legal responsibility to prevent scam content from appearing in the first place.”
Which?’s advice on what to do if you’ve been scammed by an online advert
It is possible to get your money back in many cases, although the process might be time consuming and inconvenient.
If you paid using a credit or debit card your money is covered by card protections. Ask your bank if you’re eligible to claim using chargeback or Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
When you use PayPal, your money should be protected by its Buyer Protection policy. You can make a claim through your PayPal account.
If you paid using a bank transfer, contact your bank as soon as possible and ask if it can help you. This kind of fraud on social media is on the rise, according to UK Finance.
How do I report a scam advert on social media or search engines?
Report the advert to the platform you saw it on. All the major social media platforms and search engines allow you to flag scam adverts using a ‘report’ button or a reporting form.
If you’ve lost money or personal details to a scam, report it to Action Fraud online at actionfraud.police.uk or by calling 0300 123 2040.
James, from Lancashire, spotted an advert on Facebook for a Little Tikes clearance sale. It linked to a website that was convincingly branded to look like the official Little Tikes website, so he paid £105 for a climbing frame.
But it never turned up, and the website has since disappeared.
“It’s been so frustrating. It’s unbelievable scams can be so easily advertised on Facebook.” James said.
Fortunately his bank was “very helpful” and because he paid using a credit card, it refunded his money.
One victim in his 50s told Which? he’s been conned six times after buying products he’s seen advertised on social media, including shoes, toys and tools. He has lost around £200 in total.
Additional statistics from the market research
73 per cent of social media users aged 18-34 said they were confident they could spot a scam, although Which? research earlier this year into scams on Facebook suggested this group may actually be more vulnerable to being scammed on social media.
49 per cent of search engine users surveyed trust that the retailers that appear in their search engine’s results are safe from scams. Only 35 per cent of social media users say they trust the retailers that appear on their social media feed are safe from scams.
A coveted Which? Best Buy has been awarded to a great value own-label champagne from Morrisons, proving that you can get your hands on a top-class festive fizz for under £20.
In a blind tasting of supermarket own-label (or exclusive), and top-selling big-name non-vintage champagnes priced up to £36, the Which? panel of experts awarded the highest score of 82 per cent to Morrison’s Adrien Chopin Brut Champagne.
Retailing at only £18, this Which? Best Buy was described as “golden champagne with stewed apple aromas, rich flavours and a hint of sweetness” winning the adoration of experts to become this year’s top-scorer.
Narrowly missing out on the top spot but awarded a Which? Best Buy in its own right was Waitrose’s Brut Champagne which fizzed into second place with a score of 79 percent. The Which? expert panel commended its “ripe red apples and apple blossom” character that makes it an ideal party fizz.
In joint third place but not quite achieving Which? Best Buy status was Moet & Chandon’s Imperial Brut Champagne, earning a score of 78 percent. It was described as a pleasure to drink due to its “candied notes, mellow aromas, crisp acidity, and a cashew-nut finish”. However, one expert called it a “little bland”, which might disappoint at £36.
Also rated a solid 78 per cent score was Sainsbury’s Landric Champagne Brut at £25. It only narrowly missed out on Best Buy status, pleasing experts with its “lemon acidity and toasty, nutty aftertaste”. However, its lone critic felt it was short of fruit with a slightly bitter finish.
At the bottom of the table and summed up as “wishy washy” by one panelist was Aldi’s Philizot et Fils Organic Champagne, which only managed a 67 per cent rating.
Harry Rose, Editor of Which? Magazine, said:“Your Christmas might be a bit more low key this year, but there is no reason to scrimp on the bubbly and we’re delighted that you can enjoy this season’s best fizz for only £18.
“Whether you opt for outstanding champagne at a great price or fancy paying a little more for a premium brand, our expert picks will make sure that whatever you’re doing this year, it won’t lack any sparkle.”
Also tested:
Lidl Comte de Senneval Champagne Brut (74% £12.50); Aldi Veuve Monsigny Champagne Brut (74% £13); Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference Blanc de Noirs Champagne (74% £21); M&S Louis Vertay Brut Champagne (74% £17); M&S Delacourt Brut Champagne (74% £20); Tesco Finest Premier Cru Brut Champagne (73% £20); Asda Extra Special Louis Bernard Premier Cru (73% £21); Veuve Cliquot Brut Yellow Label Champagne (73% £35); LANSON LE BLACK LABEL BRUT (72% £33); Waitrose Blanc de Noirs Brut Champagne (71% £24); Co-op Les Pionniers Champagne (71% £19); Asda Henri Cachet Champagne Brut (68% £13.50); Morrisons The Best Premier Cru Champagne (68% £21); Aldi Philizot et Fils Organic Champagne (67% £27)
The Which? panel of experts:
We consulted five of the country’s top wine experts to score this year’s offerings in our blind taste test: Charles Metcalfe – Speaker, author, and co-chair of the International Wine Challenge; Kathryn McWhirter – Wine expert and co-author (with Charles) of The Wine and Food Lover’s Guide to Portugal; Oz Clarke – Wine writer, television presenter and broadcaster; Sam Caporn – Master of Wine, freelance consultant and winner of the Madame Bollinger Medal for Excellence in Tasting; Peter McCombie – Master of Wine, restaurant wine consultant, speaker, writer and critic.
Which? has announced that not one, but two mince pies have landed its coveted Which? Best Buy in festive food blind consumer taste tests, with both Asda and Iceland coming top.
Asda Extra Special Mince Pies (£1.75 for six/29p per pie) certainly lived up to their name this year and were awarded a 73 per cent rating, scoring well for overall flavour, texture and appearance. Which?’s panel noted the “crisp” and “buttery” pastry and the intricate design, with one panelist saying it would “lure them in”.
Iceland’s Luxury All Butter Mince Pies (£1.89 for six/31p per pie) were rated just as highly for their taste, aroma and texture, and also coming in with a rating of 73 per cent. One panelist told Which? these pies “tasted like a more expensive product”.
Tesco Finest All Butter Mince Pies (£1.75 for six/29p per pie) missed out on a Best Buy with a 72 per cent rating, as while these pies delivered and the pastry was described as “melt in the mouth” by one taster, a few panellists were not keen on the firmer filling.
M&S Collection mince pies (£2.50 for six/41p per pie) were some of the pricier pies included in the taste tests, but these had some of the best pastry on test, as well as scoring well for flavour. It received a not-too-shabby rating of 71 per cent.
When it came to the bottom of the table, Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference Mince Pies (£2 for six/33p per pie) came out the worst in the taste tests with a rating of only 58 per cent. Some panelists told Which? these were “claggy” and tasted “stale” and “overcooked”.
Morrisons The Best Mince Pies (£2 for six/33p per pie) were also somewhat of a disappointment, managing a score of just 64 per cent, with more than half the panel describing these as “too dark”.
Harry Rose, Editor of Which? Magazine, said:“Nothing tastes more festive than a delicious warm and crumbly mince pie straight from the oven, and while this year Christmas might be a little different, we want to make sure that at least your mince pies don’t disappoint.”
Which? is warning of the risk of fake reviews misleading shoppers this Black Friday as new research suggests Amazon is struggling to spot and prevent sellers from using unscrupulous tactics to manipulate their ratings.
Fake reviews are a big problem on many of the world’s biggest websites and Which? has also previously uncovered evidence of fake and suspicious review activity on eBay, Facebook and TripAdvisor.
In the UK, Amazon is a dominant force with Black Friday shoppers. Which? research found 34 per cent of consumers planned to buy something there this Black Friday, compared to 16 per cent at John Lewis and seven per cent at Currys PC World.
In its latest investigation Which? looked at the first page of Amazon listings for some of the most popular Black Friday product categories, including tablets, smartphones and wearables, as well as headphones and mobile phone accessories – where it has previously found evidence of concerning review activity.
Which? uncovered a range of obvious tactics sellers are using to manipulate review ratings. Amazon says it has clear policies that prohibit sellers from engaging in this type of activity, and has mechanisms in place to analyse reviews, but Which? is concerned that its approach is not effective enough. Which?’s experts found:
Blatant evidence of sellers incentivising shoppers to write positive reviews, using free gifts or vouchers. Despite exposing this practice in previous investigations and it being in breach of Amazon’s site policies, this appears to be a persistent issue. In a number of cases the products were also labelled with the Amazon’s Choice endorsement and had comments within reviews such as: “wouldn’t have placed this review but for the fact that I am hoping to claim the free gifts offered by doing so”.
Large numbers of positive product reviews uploaded in a suspiciously short space of time. In one example a pair of Pro-Elec headphones had 1,006 ratings and 4.8 stars despite the listing having only been added less than six months earlier. That’s more than five reviews each day, on average, for a brand that’s unknown outside of Amazon. Of those reviews, 92 per cent were five stars.
Products with a suspiciously high number of review images – Which? research has shown how unscrupulous sellers often ask for images when they request positive reviews on their products. One smartwatch by Willful, an Amazon’s Choice product, had 3,800 images posted alongside the 2,544 written reviews – easily outnumbering the reviews with images left for products by better-known brands – this is more than 60 times the number of reviews with images left on the Apple Watch Series 3.
Review merging – where sellers merge dormant or unavailable products with new or existing product listings as a way to transfer positive reviews from one to another. This included a supposed iPhone 11 adaptor which appeared to share reviews with the popular PS4 video game The Last of Us.
Products with colour ‘variations’ manipulated to create higher numbers of positive reviews – evidence of users leaving multiple reviews, on the same day, by selecting different colour variants, in an apparent effort to evade any systems Amazon uses to detect fake reviews.
An account that had been hacked and used to leave a five-star review – one review of a set of headphones had been updated with a claim that the reviewer’s account had been hacked and used to leave a five star review, a tactic that other people have previously reported to Which?.
With many high street stores forced to shut due to lockdown restrictions, it’s likely that more people than ever will turn to online shopping in the weeks ahead. Which? is concerned that some sellers are seeking to manipulate reviews to increase their prominence in Amazon search results.
Worryingly there also appears to have been a rise in the proportion of suspicious reviews on Amazon in the UK since March’s coronavirus lockdown, according to ReviewMeta data.
ReviewMeta’s data suggests that there was a more than 30 per cent rise in the proportion of unnatural reviews on Amazon between March and August following the first coronavirus lockdown. This means consumers are at risk of being misled given Which? research has found that people could be more than twice as likely to choose poor-quality products online if they have been boosted by fake reviews.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has previously estimated that £23 billion a year of consumer transactions are influenced by online reviews and many people will be looking to use them as a helpful guide to get a good deal in the sales.
However, Which? believes that firmer action is needed to address the recurring problems caused by fake reviews on online marketplaces and other platforms, so that consumers can shop online with confidence.
The CMA must seek to conclude its investigation into fake reviews with some urgency. If it finds that sites that host reviews are not doing enough to detect and prevent fake reviews and the bad actors that flood their platforms with them – then strong action must immediately be taken to prevent growing numbers of consumers from being misled.
Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said:“Our investigation has uncovered popular Black Friday product categories that are littered with fake and suspicious reviews – suggesting that deals that look too good to be true often are. This leaves shoppers at risk of being misled into buying poor quality and potentially dangerous products online.
“With people more reliant on online shopping than ever before due to the coronavirus crisis, it’s vital that online platforms step up and do more to protect their users from fake reviews, otherwise the regulator must be prepared to swiftly step in with strong action.”
Which?’s advice on how to spot fake reviews this Black Friday:
If it looks too good to be true…
A healthy degree of scepticism is your best weapon against fake reviews. If a product has an unusually high number of reviews relative to others in that category, especially if these reviews are overwhelmingly positive, you’d be right to exercise caution.
Actually read the reviews
Don’t just trust the overall rating – read some reviews to look for suspicious repetition or signs of incentivisation, and sort by recent reviews to see what new buyers thought. Always check negative reviews as well, to see if there are recurring issues.
Take extra care with brands you don’t recognise
The majority of fake review activity we’ve seen has been on brands that are all but unknown outside marketplaces. If you don’t recognise the brand, check to see if it has a legitimate looking website, with clear contact details. You could even try calling or emailing the seller with a question, to see how quickly they respond.
Be wary of products with lots of pictures or videos
Sellers on Facebook review groups who incentivise positive reviews often encourage people to add photos and videos. Ask yourself, how likely is it that you’d take the time to snap multiple images, or a video, of a product that you’re reviewing honestly?
Report suspicious reviews to Amazon
Consumers concerned about the authenticity of reviews left on a product, when they are looking at websites, are encouraged to report this to the online platform so that it can investigate.
British Airways and EasyJet are going against EU guidance and refusing to refund unused vouchers for flights cancelled during the pandemic, Which? can reveal.
Some passengers willingly accepted vouchers in place of cash refunds when their flights were cancelled because of coronavirus, believing they were helping the airlines. But others claim they weren’t told they were entitled to cash refunds, or that they were misled into accepting vouchers they didn’t want.
The European Commission issued guidance in May recommending that airlines automatically refund any unused vouchers 14 days after they expire. However, this is only guidance, not a legal requirement.
While Ryanair says its vouchers can be refunded at any time, BA and Easyjet insist that once issued, their vouchers can not be exchanged for cash. That means passengers could be left hundreds of pounds out of pocket if they do not use them by the time they expire.
When flights are cancelled by an EU airline or by an airline flying from an EU airport, passengers are entitled to a cash refund under EU Regulation 261 within seven days of the cancellation. But after the pandemic grounded most flights leaving the UK earlier this year, all of the UK’s biggest airlines failed to meet this legal requirement, and many passengers were given vouchers instead.
At the height of the pandemic earlier in the year, many customers with cancelled flights struggled to contact airlines to ask for their money back. BA customers in particular complained after the airline removed its online refund form from its website and directed people to its overwhelmed customer service line, which played an automated message before hanging up on the passenger.
Some BA passengers have also complained to Which? that they automatically received vouchers for cancelled flights when they thought they’d applied for refunds through the website’s ‘Manage my booking’ page.
Jackie Harbridge says when she called BA to request a refund a recorded message directed her to Manage My Booking on BA’s website, but when she clicked on the refund button, she says she received a voucher for £2,118 for the flights to San Francisco.
She tried to call BA immediately, but struggled to get through. When she eventually got to speak to an agent she was told that since she had requested vouchers the decision could not be reversed.
“I was completely misguided by the instruction in BA’s Manage My Booking, which specifically quoted ‘Refund’ but turned out to be for a voucher, which is completely useless to us,” said Jackie. She and her 83-year-old husband no longer plan to travel so they can’t make use of the vouchers.
BA denies its claims process is misleading, saying that it has issued more than 2.1 million cash refunds. It said it is clear that customers must call to request cash refunds, and insists that they only get a voucher if they fill out a form that clearly states they are requesting a voucher.
While Easyjet passengers can request a refund online when their flight is cancelled, some willingly accepted vouchers to help support the airline.
But some passengers now may not be able to use their vouchers because the airline has cut back on some routes in recent months, and Easyjet has said it will only refund vouchers in “exceptional circumstances as a gesture of goodwill”.
An Easyjet spokesperson said: “For passengers who have chosen a voucher as compensation for their cancelled flight, we would only reverse this and offer a refund in exceptional circumstances as a gesture of goodwill if the customer’s circumstances justify it (eg. A school group no longer able to re-travel).”
A number of Easyjet’s flight routes have yet to restart, and a number of routes passengers were initially booked on have been dropped since vouchers were issued, after the airline pulled out of Southend Airport and dropped a number of routes from Newcastle and Stansted airports. Easyjet’s vouchers are only valid for a year, meaning many passengers may be left with vouchers they cannot use.
BA has dropped 60 per cent of its flights up to the end of this year and also pulled out of the Isle of Man. However, it has extended the validity of its vouchers so they can be used any time up to April 2022.
Additionally, BA and Easyjet both say vouchers are transferable, so passengers can pass them on to family and friends if they are unable to use them.
On top of ignoring guidance on refunds for unused vouchers, BA and EasyJet have also said that they will not be offering refunds for flights that operate as scheduled, meaning many passengers will only have the option of rebooking their flight to a later date if they cannot fly due to England’s latest lockdown. Ryanair has also said it will not offer refunds for flights that are not cancelled while passengers are in lockdown.
Which? believes the Civil Aviation Authority should be doing a better job of making it clear to airlines that they should be following legal guidance on vouchers and refunds, but without powers to issue fines or take swift action, it has struggled to get a grip as airlines have played fast and loose with the rules during the pandemic.
To help restore trust in the travel industry, the government must urgently review the CAA’s powers as part of its aviation recovery plan, to ensure passengers have an aviation regulator with the powers it needs to stand up for their rights.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“As we head into a winter that is bound to bring more flight cancellations, it’s extremely concerning to see the UK’s biggest airlines disregarding European guidance and letting their passengers down when it comes to their refund rights.
“BA and Easyjet must immediately make it clear that passengers will not face losing their money if they are unable to use a voucher, while all airlines should be offering cash refunds to passengers prevented from travelling by lockdown laws.
“Major airlines have acted shamefully and without fear of consequences during this pandemic – the government must urgently review the CAA’s powers as part of its aviation recovery plan to ensure passengers have a regulator that can effectively stand up for them.”
Some passengers have successfully secured refunds for vouchers they claim they didn’t ask for by going through their airline’s ADR scheme.
The CAA recommends anyone who had a voucher forced upon them, or whose airline is refusing to refund them should do the same – BA uses CEDR, while EasyJet uses CDRL.
Passengers whose airline isn’t a member of an ADR scheme should seek redress through the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints team.
Kim Norris received a cash refund of £1,099 after taking her case of an unwanted voucher to BA’s alternative dispute resolution service, CEDR. It said that, on the balance of probabilities, she had not agreed to accept a voucher.
BA said that Kim applied for a voucher via its website, but it only provided CEDR a screenshot of the type of form it says she filled out, not her specific form. BA acknowledged that Kim had asked twice for a refund, by phone and by email. CEDR found that when BA issued the voucher, it was unlikely that Kim had voluntarily consented to accept it.
In its ruling, CEDR also pointed to a recommendation from the European Commission that if vouchers haven’t been redeemed by the end of their validity period they should be automatically reimbursed within 14 days.
A British Airways spokesperson said: “We do not auto-issue vouchers, they can only be issued when a customer has requested them by filling out the form. Our website is clear that when filling out the form it is to apply for vouchers.
“Customers are always entitled to a cash refund if their flight has been cancelled, and must call us to do this, which is clearly displayed on our website. Customers have up to a year after their flight was due to operate to get in touch with us for a cash refund – and we have processed over 2.1 million cash refunds to date.
“If a customer uses a voucher to make a new booking which is then subsequently cancelled by us, they would be entitled to choose either a cash refund (if the original booking was paid for in cash), or a voucher in a similar way as before.”
More than £8 billion worth of package holidays are estimated to have been cancelled since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, with just over £1 billion still estimated to be outstanding in refunds, according to new research from Which?.
Millions of people have had a package holiday cancelled by their provider since the UK went into lockdown in March, with refunds for one in five (21%) holidays where a cash refund was requested still outstanding at the beginning of October.
Which? surveyed more than 7,500 people who have had a package holiday cancelled as a result of the pandemic to understand how the situation around refunds has developed since the UK first entered lockdown.
An estimated total of just over £1 billion is being illegally withheld in partial or full refunds from customers who requested their money back, with the survey suggesting the average cancelled holiday cost £1,784.
Under the Package Travel Regulations 2018, if a package holiday is cancelled by the provider, the customer is legally entitled to a full refund within 14 days. A package holiday is a booking comprising at least two types of travel or travel-related services made through the same source, most commonly flights and accommodation.
Around 9.4 million people are estimated to have had a package holiday cancelled by their operator since the pandemic hit the UK. The backlog of refunds for cancellations caused by the coronavirus pandemic meant that the majority of operators struggled to refund within the legal time limit, with customer service lines overwhelmed by travellers trying to contact them to ask about their refunds.
Some package providers reported delays in receiving refunds back from airlines, many of which – despite making commitments to the aviation regulator – continue to break the law on refunds. This has meant package holiday operators have often only been able to process partial refunds for customers.
But while some companies have managed to get on top of the backlog caused by these delays, several other major providers have continued to leave passengers out of pocket, with Which? still receiving huge numbers of complaints from customers waiting for refunds.
The average amount of time spent contacting package holiday companies about cancelled trips was around 15.5 hours. For more than four in 10 (43%) of the cancelled holidays reported to Which?, customers said they waited longer than a month to get their money back.
During the summer, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an investigation into package travel companies’ handling of cancellations and refunds. Following pressure from Which? and the CMA, Tui agreed to refund all customers by the 30th of September. The regulator also recently confirmed that Virgin Holidays has also committed to processing refunds for all holidays cancelled up to the end of October by 20 November.
Nearly four in ten (37%) people who have had a package holiday cancelled by their provider since the beginning of the outbreak said the experience has had a negative impact on their confidence in the travel industry.
Which? is calling on the government to outline how it will support the travel industry through the rest of the pandemic, and is urging it to introduce a travel guarantee fund to support package holiday providers that are struggling to fulfil their legal obligations to refund customers. It should also conduct a review of passenger protections following the coronavirus outbreak.
While the CMA has already secured commitments to process refunds from some companies, it is clear that some firms are not improving their practices of their own volition. The competition regulator must continue to closely monitor operators and secure further undertakings from those that flout the law, to prevent trust in travel being damaged any further.
Which?’s advice to anyone looking to book a future holiday is to book with a provider that can be trusted to refund their money promptly if they can’t travel, and to consider booking a package over a flight-only booking, to ensure they have greater legal protections if they cannot travel because of coronavirus.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Since Which? first highlighted the issue of holiday companies delaying or denying refunds for holidays cancelled due to coronavirus, some operators have continued to flout the law and the sums of money being illegally withheld from holidaymakers are staggering.
“It’s simply unacceptable that some of the UK’s largest operators are still getting away with breaking the law, but without meaningful intervention from the government and the regulators in this space, many people will struggle to get their money back.
“The CMA must take firm action against any operators that are continuing to drag their feet on refunding holidaymakers, and the government must urgently set out how it will support travel companies in fulfilling their legal obligations to passengers.”
2021 holidays – the tour operators and travel agents Which? recommends:
HOLIDAYMAKERS IN EDINBURGH OWED NEARLY £8 MILLION IN WITHELD REFUNDS
LOCAL MSP SAYS REGULATOR MUST DO MORE TO SUPPORT CUSTOMERS
SNP MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands has demanded action after the latest estimations from Which? suggested people in Edinburgh could be owed £7,858,609 in withheld refunds for cancelled trips.
Customers across the UK are waiting on more than £1 billion in refunds according to the results of the survey of more than 7,500 people who had a package holiday cancelled as a result of the pandemic.
Expressed a proportion of population, the findings of the survey suggest that holidaymakers in Edinburgh could be owed nearly £8 million.
Holiday companies are required to refund money within 14 days but the huge number of cancellations has left many of firms overwhelmed. 21% of those surveyed who requested a refund in March were still waiting at the beginning of October.
The research also found that the average cost of a cancelled holiday was £1,784.
During the summer, the Competition and Markets Authority launched an investigation into package travel companies’ handling of cancellations and refunds.
Commenting on the figures, local SNP MSP Gordon MacDonald said: “For many people, this saga has rumbled on for far too long – it’s time for the UK government and the market regulator to get a hold of this situation.
“Times are tough financially for many local families, and while I appreciate holiday companies were inundated with refund requests earlier in the year, we are now in November.
“We aren’t talking about spare change here – the average cost of a cancelled holiday was £1,784 according to this survey.
“While we all recognise the travel industry’s acute financial difficulties, there can be no excuse for them hoarding the hard-earned cash of their hard-pressed customers.
“As a matter of urgency, the UK government needs to set out how travel companies will be supported financially to fulfil their legal obligations to passengers – and take firm action against those who continue to drag their feet.
“I would urge anyone in Edinburgh Pentlands who is still waiting on a refund from March to get in touch with my office – I will offer any support I can to make sure you get your money back.”
