The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed the support mortgage borrowers will receive if they continue to face payment difficulties due to coronavirus.
The FCA has published additional guidance for firms, to ensure that consumers who have benefitted from payment deferrals under the current guidance who still face financial difficulties, as well as those whose financial situation may be newly affected by coronavirus after the current guidance ends, continue to get the support they need.
The measures mean firms will offer further short and longer-term support reflecting the circumstances of their customers. This could include extending the repayment term or restructuring of the mortgage. Where consumers need further short-term support, firms can continue to offer arrangements for no or reduced payments for a specified period to give customers time to get back on track. This additional guidance will come into force on 16 September 2020.
Christopher Woolard, Interim Chief Executive at the FCA, said: “Some consumers will continue to be impacted by coronavirus in the coming months, or be impacted for the first time. Consumers in these situations will benefit from firms providing them with tailored support.
“However, it is very important that consumers who can afford to resume mortgage payments should do so for their own long-term interests and so that help can be targeted at those most in need.”
Under the guidance published today, firms will prioritise support for borrowers who are at most risk of harm, or who face the greatest financial difficulties. The new guidance reinforces the need for firms to deliver outcomes that are right for individual borrowers rather than adopting “one size fits all” solutions. The FCA will be monitoring firms to ensure borrowers are treated fairly having regard to their individual circumstances.
Firms will also signpost borrowers to the support they need in managing their finances, including through self-help and money guidance, or refer borrowers to organisations that can provide free debt advice if this meets their needs and circumstances.
Where borrowers have taken, or are taking, payment deferrals under our existing guidance and require further support from lenders these further arrangements can be reflected on credit files in accordance with normal reporting processes. This also applies to borrowers newly affected by coronavirus who receive support from their lender after 31 October.
This will help to ensure that lenders have an accurate picture of consumers’ financial circumstances and reduce the risk of unaffordable lending. Firms are required to be clear about the credit file implications of any forms of support offered to borrowers.
The FCA’s current guidance published in June will continue to provide support for those impacted by coronavirus until 31 October 2020 – with consumers able to take a first or second three-month payment deferral until this date.
The June guidance is due to expire on 31 October and we do not intend to extend this guidance. The guidance published today ensures consumers will still be able to obtain the support they need from their lenders after their payment holiday ends or they are newly affected by coronavirus after 31 October.
Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said:“While the FCA has announced some support for certain customers who will struggle financially after the current support period ends, it is disappointing that payment deferrals will no longer be available in the same way.
“We are also concerned about the impact of allowing normal credit reference agency reporting to resume even where consumers fall into temporary difficulty. It is unfair that consumers who have not yet had a deferral but may need support after the furlough scheme ends will feel the effects longer-term.
“Lenders should ensure that people can easily access the support they need and not shy away from offering a range of support options. They must be clear with customers about how any arrangements, such as payment deferrals, will be marked on their credit file.”
Car hire insurance sold by rental companies can be up to 14 times more expensive and provides worse cover than policies bought online, according to new research from Which?.
The consumer champion compared the cost of car hire insurance policies from major car rental companies with top-rated independent insurance policies that can be bought online, for a week’s hire in Malaga, Spain.
The most expensive policy was from Europcar, costing £203 a week. By comparison, the cheapest top-rated policy from a major online provider was from Chew Insurance, and cost just £14 a week – a saving of £189.
The research found that, on average, the six biggest car hire firms charge £147 for a week’s insurance, while the six top-rated independent insurance policies sold online cost just £23 on average.
The lowest price from a car hire company that Which? found, for a week’s insurance in Spain, was from Enterprise at £115. Avis, Alamo, Europcar, Goldcar and Hertz’s policies were all more expensive.
Additionally, all of the more expensive policies offered by the car hire insurance firms provide inferior cover to the top-rated independent insurance policies. Which? insurance experts gave the top six independent providers a policy score ranging from 75 per cent to 82 per cent. When car rental firms’ policies were rated, the highest scoring policies received a mediocre 61 per cent.
The best car hire insurance included cover for damage to a car’s tyres, windscreen and underbody, flat battery cover, admin charges, car-jacking, towing cover, personal accident cover, among other features.
Questor Insurance, which received the top policy score of 82 per cent, charged just £24 for a week’s insurance in Spain. Questor offered cover for misfuelling, getting locked out, and lost or damaged keys. Despite costing £179 more, Europcar didn’t offer any of this cover as part of its policy.
The policies sold by major car hire companies contained a significant number of exclusions. Examples of incidences where a driver wouldn’t be covered include if an Avis customer had a stone chip their windscreen, if an Alamo customer got a flat tyre, or if a Hertz customer got locked out of their rental.
As well as offering cover for these accidents, the top-rated independent policies also offer cover for drivers who get locked out of the car, if they accidentally put the wrong type of fuel in the car, or are forced to cut short their hire. They also offer cover (usually up to £300) for any personal items that are stolen from the car. None of the more expensive policies from the car rental firms cover all of these incidents.
The only disadvantage of taking out an independent policy is that customers would still have any charges deducted from their credit card by the hire company, having to claim them back from their insurance afterwards.
As car hire has become an increasingly competitive market, the price of rental has dropped as low as £1 per day in some cases, meaning car hire companies often make their money from the sale of extras.
Which? has previously exposed car hire companies using pressure selling tactics to persuade customers to pay for these extras. Last year, Which? caught Europcar’s budget arm, Goldcar, on camera lying to and bullying customers into buying expensive cover.
Additionally, one in four (26%) Which? readers in the consumer champion’s most recent car hire survey said they were stung with unexpected charges, and a quarter of those who paid extra, ended up forking out an additional £200 or more.
While cover bought online can be significantly cheaper than policies bought from a car rental firm, Which? is also reminding holidaymakers looking for car hire insurance not to be swayed by the lowest price available online. Not all policies available online from independent providers are worth it, so always check the terms of the policy and the cover on offer before buying.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Car hire is an industry plagued with unscrupulous practices, with wildly excessive charges for sub-standard insurance policies just one of the pitfalls customers should be wary of when choosing a rental company.
“The good news is that, no matter how a car hire salesperson may try and persuade you at the desk, you don’t have to fork out for one of these eye-wateringly expensive policies. Much more thorough cover is available online for a fraction of the cost, meaning you can enjoy your holiday with peace of mind that you’ll be covered if something goes wrong with your rental.”
The UK holiday destination swaps that will save you hundreds
UK holidaymakers can save hundreds of pounds on hotel costs over the course of a holiday by swapping their location for similar destinations just a few miles away, Which? Travel has found.
With international travel restrictions in place around the world and the UK government warning against travel to a growing number of popular holiday destinations across Europe, many UK holidaymakers are continuing to book staycations to see out the end of the summer.
Which? Travel compared the average hotel room rates in towns in 10 of the UK’s most popular destinations, including Cornwall and the Cotswolds, before comparing these to other similar nearby resorts, to see how much people could save on their holiday by travelling just a few miles further.
The biggest saving was in Devon. An average of £59 a night could be saved by swapping one coastal destination for another just 20 miles away. The average cost of a hotel room in Salcombe was £209 a night. However, further down the coast in Dartmouth, holidaymakers could slash hotel costs by nearly 30 per cent, with a hotel room costing on average £150 a night. Over the course of a week, this works out as a saving of over £400.
Dartmouth received the second highest ranking in Which?’s recent survey of seaside towns and villages, achieving a customer score of 84 per cent and scoring highly for its scenery and tourist attractions. It also out-ranked Salcombe, which received a score of 71 per cent.
The shortest distance that Which? found people would have to travel to make a saving was just three miles – from Saundersfoot to Tenby. While a night in Saundersfoot could set you back an average of £155, a room just three miles south in Tenby costs an average of £112, saving £43 a night, or £301 over the course of a week. Tenby also fared well in Which?’s seaside survey, receiving a customer score of 79 per cent, while Saundersfoot received 71 per cent.
Some swaps meant travelling a bit further to make a saving. For example, holidaymakers looking for a Scottish city break could save an average of £25 a night if they travelled the 47 miles from Edinburgh to Glasgow.
Glasgow ranked highly in Which?’s recent survey of the UK’s best cities, scoring 82 per cent – just two percentage points behind Edinburgh (84%). It received excellent scores for culture, sights and attractions, as well as food and drink.
Additionally, with a return train ticket between the two cities costing less than £14 and the journey taking less than 90 minutes, the savings made by staying in Glasgow would cover the cost of a day trip to the capital with change to spare, meaning holidaymakers can enjoy the best of both cities.
Further savings could be made on a trip to the Cotswolds by staying in Gloucester rather than Cheltenham (average saving of £46 a night), a beach break in East Sussex by swapping Brighton for Eastbourne (average saving of £56 a night), and on a break in Somerset through booking in Wells instead of Bath (average saving of £53 a night).
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“These destination swaps aren’t just a chance to save money – travellers can expect to find fewer crowds and more space to breathe, with holidaymakers ranking many of the cheaper destinations as not only better value, but a better overall stay than their pricier and more popular counterparts.”
“As we come towards the end of a holiday season like no other, holidaymakers will be pleased to learn they can still squeeze the last out of the summer without sacrificing beautiful scenery or great attractions by just travelling a few extra miles along the road.”
The Royal Yacht Britannia has been rated the UK’s favourite historical attraction, according to a new Which? survey.
The Queen’s former yacht, permanently moored on the waters of Leith in Edinburgh, came out on top when over 4,000 Which? members were asked to rate the UK’s 50 most visited attractions on criteria including facilities, entertainment and lack of crowds.
The Royal Yacht Britannia, which visited 144 countries during its 44 years in royal service, topped the table with a customer score of 90 per cent. Visitors gave it a five-star rating for food and drink, information, and value for money.
Visitors told Which? it was an “outstanding attraction”, “immaculately kept” and that staff were “very kind and helpful”. One respondent told Which?, “I thought we would spend about two hours there and in the end were practically the last to leave”.
It was followed by Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Water Garden in Yorkshire, the country’s largest monastic ruins, with a customer score of 89 per cent. Those who rated it highly described the setting as “magical” and “suited to a slow pace and contemplation”.
The Abbey also scored well for information and value for money with both receiving five stars. It also achieved a further five stars for lack of crowds and queues, meaning visitors can enjoy the ruins and the Water Garden with plenty of space to roam between the two.
Stourhead House and Gardens received the third highest customer score (88%), followed by the Tower of London (87%), the most expensive of the 50 attractions. Entry to the popular London attraction costs £30.30 a head for adult non-members, but visitors gave it four out of five stars for value for money, with a wide range of exhibitions to enjoy as part of the ticket price.
Durham Cathedral was the highest scoring free attraction, with a customer score of 85 per cent – putting it joint seventh out of the 50 attractions (alongside Dover Castle, Culzean Castle, Titanic Belfast and Tyntesfield). Visitors gave it five stars for lack of crowds and value for money.
While visitors recommended the guided tours and attending a service to enjoy music from the choir, the Cathedral has since temporarily suspended singing and choral music as a result of measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
At the other end of the table was Southend Pier, the world’s longest pleasure pier, with a respectable customer score of 63 per cent. Although it features at the bottom of the list, it scored four stars for accessibility and lack of crowds. Visitors praised the walk along the pier as a way to blow away the cobwebs and liked the option of taking a train from one end to the other to enjoy the views.
However, it scored just one star for entertainment and engagement, facilities, and food and drink. Some visitors complained that the pier was “run down” and “not the most exciting place in the world”.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “With so many of us holidaying in the UK this year, we’re all looking for new places to explore and these results provide plenty of inspiration, with some excellent lesser-known attractions alongside the favourites we already know and love.
“Our findings show that visitors value learning something new from the historical attractions they visit, while providing value for money is another common feature of those near the top of the table. What’s clear though is that whatever your budget, whether you’re looking for a stroll down a pier or a saunter through a palace, the UK is blessed with fantastic locations for great days out.”
France and the Netherlands will be removed from the list of destinations exempt from quarantine requirements due to an increased number of cases of coronavirus (COVID-19).
Aruba, Turks and Caicos, Malta and Monaco will also be removed from the exemption list.
The decision made by the Scottish Government, and also made by the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales as well as the UK Government, is to reduce the risk of the transmission of the virus by those travelling from these countries.
The public health measures will come into effect at 4am tomorrow (Saturday 15 August) and will mean those arriving in Scotland from France, the Netherlands, Aruba, Turks and Caicos, Malta, and Monaco will be required to quarantine for 14 days.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said: “We have always been clear we are closely monitoring the situation in all countries and that we may need to take action to remove a country from the list of places exempt from quarantine requirements should the virus show a resurgence.
“These are not decisions which we take lightly but on the basis of the evidence it is important that we take action to suppress transmission of the virus and protect public health.”
Public health rules for international travel are an important part of Scotland’s wider response to the pandemic, to limit the introduction of new chains of transmission as Scotland’s own infection rates have been falling.
All international travellers arriving into Scotland, apart from a very limited number of exemptions, must complete a passenger locator form and provide evidence that they have done so on arrival in the UK if requested to do so by a Border Force official. Individuals who do not complete the form and present it when asked on arrival may be fined £60. The fine can be doubled for each subsequent offence up to a maximum of £480.
Those travelling abroad should check in advance if there are any requirements to quarantine on arrival at their destination.
The existing list of overseas destinations where those arriving in Scotland are exempt from self-isolation can be found online.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has also updated its travel advice to advise against all but essential travel to France, Monaco, the Netherlands, Malta, Turks and Caicos Islands and Aruba.
Rory Boland, Which? Travel Editor, said:“It’s understandable that the government wants to restrict travel to these countries at this time, but the burden of this decision disproportionally falls on holidaymakers – thousands of whom are likely to be left significantly out of pocket because their airline will refuse to refund them.
“Unlike tour operators, airlines now routinely ignore FCO travel warnings and refuse refunds because, they argue, the flight is still operating. Some major airlines, like Ryanair, won’t even allow customers to rebook without charging a hefty fee.
“The government wants us to act responsibly and not travel to countries with an FCO warning, but it needs to make it clear to airlines that they too need to act responsibly and not ignore government travel advice in an effort to pocket customer cash.”
Some airlines are still failing to refund passengers
Ryanair, Virgin Atlantic and Tui are failing to refund passengers in agreed timeframes, breaching recent commitments to the regulator that they would speed up their refund process.
Which? has seen evidence that the airlines are reneging on promises they made to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about how they would improve their refund processes, including from some passengers who have been left out of pocket since March.
The findings come after the CAA reviewed airlines’ behaviour and identified several carriers that weren’t paying refunds ‘sufficiently quickly’, but opted not to take enforcement action after receiving commitments from the airlines to improve their performance.
However, Which? found that Ryanair, Tui and Virgin – all identified by the CAA as not processing refunds fast enough – are falling short of the promises they made to the regulator, prompting concerns from Which? that the regulator’s enforcement powers may not be fit for purpose.
The CAA told Ryanair it wasn’t satisfied that it was taking 10 weeks or longer to process refunds, and that airlines offering vouchers should also be offering passengers the choice of a cash refund. Following the regulator’s review, Ryanair published a commitment on its website that all refund requests up to the end of May would be cleared by 31 July.
But Which? has heard from Ryanair passengers who are still waiting for refunds from March, and who are still trying to get cash refunds after they were initially sent vouchers despite requesting cash refunds.
Virgin Atlantic told the CAA its maximum waiting time for refunds is 120 days, but some passengers have been trying to get refunds from the airline for longer than four months.
The consumer champion heard from two passengers who have been waiting over 130 days for refunds for flights that were cancelled in March.
Tui was reprimanded by the CAA for issuing vouchers and then making customers wait a further 28 days before they could apply for their money back. Tui told the CAA that “on average, cash refunds will be processed within 14 days”.
However, despite telling the regulator it is no longer automatically issuing vouchers, Tui still states on its website that customers must wait for a voucher before they can claim a cash refund.
Which? has heard from a passenger who is yet to even receive the voucher that she needs to claim her refund – or received any other communication from Tui – after her flight was cancelled in April.
Following its review, the CAA said a number of airlines have committed to speeding up the time it is taking to process refunds without requiring enforcement action, and that it would continue to monitor those airlines and continue to push for further improvements.
It said it would consider if enforcement action was appropriate if airlines failed to meet their commitments. However, it also highlighted that its enforcement powers are not well suited to swift action, and that it can take a considerable period of time for a case to come before the courts.
Which? is concerned that if airlines are continually allowed to openly break the law on refunds through this crisis, it will set a precedent that sees airlines continue to treat passengers unfairly without fear of consequence or sanctions.
Airlines have repeatedly been given the benefit of the doubt, but some have treated the regulator’s efforts to secure voluntary commitments with indifference. It is clear that more needs to be done to give the CAA the clout to effectively hold airlines to account.
Which? is calling for the government to enhance the CAA’s existing powers to allow it to more easily take swift and meaningful action against airlines that have repeatedly been exposed for disregarding the law and their passengers over the course of the pandemic.
The consumer champion believes this should be the first of a series of reforms to the travel industry, to help ensure the future of international travel from the UK and to help restore consumer trust in the sector.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Time after time, Which? has exposed airlines breaking the law on refunds for cancelled flights due to the pandemic and treating their passengers unfairly, and we’re concerned that they now feel empowered to do as they please without fear of punishment.
“Passengers must be able to rely on a regulator that has effective powers to protect their rights – especially at a time of unprecedented turmoil. The government needs to step up and ensure the CAA has the tools it needs to hold airlines to account, or risk consumer trust in the travel industry being damaged beyond repair.”
Kirsty Ness requested a cash refund from Ryanair immediately after her flights were cancelled in late March, but on 20 April she received a voucher instead.
Kirsty has called Ryanair several times to cash in the voucher, but she has yet to receive her refund.
Palliative care nurse Jeanette Howard was sent a voucher for her Ryanair flights to Alicante that were cancelled on 20 March, even though she had applied for a cash refund.
She says she’s called the airline ‘on a daily basis’ since late April to ask to exchange the voucher for cash, but she’s still waiting for her money back.
Ryanair did not respond to Which?’s request for a comment.
Jeff Palmer and his wife were due to fly with Virgin Atlantic to Vegas on 9 April. He first requested a refund from Virgin on 31 March after they cancelled his flights, and told Which? he has tried ‘every method under the sun’ to contact them.
He received emails telling him it would be 90 days, then 50, then another 14, before receiving a refund for his flight but not his wife’s – despite it being part of the same booking. He told Which? he has contacted them several times since, and still no sign of a refund for her ticket.
A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said:“The huge volume of refund requests we have received, combined with the constraints on our teams and systems during the pandemic, has meant that refunds have been taking longer than usual to process, and we sincerely apologise for this.
“Since April, we have been focussed on making improvements wherever possible. We’ve boosted the size of the team dedicated to processing refunds five-fold, with over 200 people now directly involved. This has increased our capacity to process a greater number of refunds, more quickly and we continue to minimise the wait time for existing refund requests.
“Thanks to the progress made, we are steadily reducing the maximum processing time for each new Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Holidays cash refund. For customers requesting a refund in August, we expect the maximum processing time to be 80 days, from the date the refund is requested. For those requesting a refund in September, we expect it to take a maximum of 60 days, and then reduce to 30 days for refunds requested in October, before returning to normal levels.
“Up until recently we have been committed to processing existing refunds within a maximum of 120 days, from the date the refund is requested, and we inform each customer when this is done by email. The timeframe begins from the date the refund is requested and acknowledged by a customer agent, not the date the flight is cancelled.
“We are aware that there are a portion of Virgin Atlantic bookings with pending refund requests which were incorrectly inputted and unfortunately now exceed 120 days for processing. This was an administration error and as soon as this was identified we urgently investigated. We are resolving this as a priority and any customers affected will have their refund processed as soon as possible.”
Kath Lowe’s Tui flight from Manchester to Tenerife was cancelled on 29 April, but she hasn’t received a voucher – or any other communication – from Tui and until she does she can’t claim a refund.
She says she’s tried calling Tui on many occasions but she’s never managed to get through to its call centre.
A Tui spokesperson said:“Customers with cancelled flight only bookings which were due to depart before 11 July were issued refund credit vouchers, and could then apply for a cash refund via our online form. These refunds were processed within 28 days.
“Customers with cancelled flight only bookings which were due to depart from 11 July onwards will automatically receive cash refunds. These refunds will be processed within 14 days.
“We’re really sorry to any customers who may have experienced delays in receiving their refund.”
Tui has also confirmed a voucher was sent to the case study in May but speculated it may have been lost in junk mail. They’ve now requested for this to be cancelled and a refund to be issued.
The CAA said:“We will review any supplementary evidence provided to us by Which? – beyond the 12,000 submitted to us during the review – but we will need to see individual examples in order to consider what further action is needed with the airlines.
“Throughout our review, alongside information received from airlines, we also used information from consumers and consumer groups, as well as mystery shopping from our consumer protection team, to determine what commitments were needed from airlines to improve performance.
“If we had not received such commitments during our review, then our next step would be to consider formal enforcement action. However, this enforcement process can take a significant period of time without providing short-term results for consumers. For example, the enforcement action we commenced against Ryanair in 2018 is not expected to come to court until at least 2021.
“While our initial review has finished, we have been clear that we will continue to monitor performance and should any airline fall short of the commitments they have made to us, we will take further action as required.”
During lockdown, the price of fuel hit a four-year low but new analysis from Which? has found that drivers were being overcharged at the pumps as sellers failed to pass on savings.
Rather than passing on the full reduction in wholesale prices, the consumer champion found that sellers were pumping up their own margins, which rose from 10p a litre to 18p – an increase of around 80 per cent – in the weeks after lockdown was introduced.
Despite a noticeable fall in the cost of unleaded petrol at forecourts across Britain, Which?’s study of fuel prices during lockdown suggests that drivers were actually still overpaying to fill up their cars as inflating margins allowed some fuel companies to pocket a proportion of the savings for themselves.
In March and April prices hovered between £1.02 and £1.04 a litre at supermarkets. In May, the price finally dropped below £1 at Morrisons, Asda and Tesco, while Sainsbury’s brought its prices down to the £1 mark. Independent petrol stations also followed suit but many remained several pence per litre more expensive.
Despite these noticeable savings, in the week that lockdown was announced in the UK, the average retail margin, which includes the cost of overheads and profit for suppliers and retailers, jumped from around 10p a litre to nearly 18p based on data supplied by the AA – by far the biggest jump of any week in 2019 and 2020.
For the same week in 2019, the margin was just 8p a litre and as little as 5p in April 2019.
The increase in margin may have been necessary for smaller independent petrol stations to survive the pandemic crisis, but some bigger independent petrol station groups – such as Motor Fuel Group, which has around 900 stations – are responsible for around 30 per cent of the market, and some will have made savings of millions of pounds during lockdown.
While this was partially due to financial measures introduced by the UK government, such as the business rate holidays, it raises questions about how high margins, such as those seen during the coronavirus pandemic, are set.
Currently, there are no established rules on the margins retailers can apply to pump prices, and, crucially, there’s not an independent fuel watchdog to monitor that these costs are fairly calculated.
Motorway services, which are privately owned, are able to charge large premiums for fuel compared with other forecourts. This also applies to the cost of items for sale in their service stations, meaning customers could be charged different prices for a cup of coffee if they stopped multiple times on a journey.
Which? found that sellers setting their own margins also have a role in regional differences and in the first week of lockdown, the difference in price between Northern Ireland and the South East of England was as much as 8p a litre for petrol and 6p a litre for diesel. Drivers in Northern Ireland get the best deal, because there is a proportionally high number of forecourts and therefore increased competition to keep prices low.
Which?’s own data also revealed that petrol is generally cheaper in towns and cities than in rural locations. But supermarket fuel forecourts, even in the countryside, are still cheaper than oil-company-owned petrol stations in cities.
Supermarkets sell 45 per cent of all fuel, benefiting from lower delivery costs due to the volumes they buy and sell, and bringing in footfall to their stores along with lower pump prices. In areas where there is less competition, particularly from large supermarket stores, drivers will get less value for money as independent fuel forecourts will be able to maintain higher margins with less impact on custom.
However, even supermarkets – which often reflect changes to the wholesale price more quickly than independent or oil-company-owned forecourts – sometimes choose to pass on any savings due to falling wholesale prices to customers through money-off vouchers instead of lowering prices.
In a survey, nearly half (45%) of respondents said that they use supermarket vouchers to reduce their fuel costs. However, the often high minimum spend requirements may mean that this is not a good value for money as it might seem, as those who can’t afford the minimum spend, or who don’t want to spend it, miss out on the savings on petrol.
The retail margin has already started to drop closer to pre-lockdown levels as demand returns to normal, but the pandemic has highlighted serious issues with the uncapped margins being set by fuel retailers, and the lack of an independent regulatory body to monitor these.
Which? believes drops in wholesale prices must be fairly reflected at the pumps and savings passed on to drivers, no matter where they buy their fuel.
Harry Rose, Editor of Which? said:“While there may have been fair cause for some fuel sellers to increase retail margins in order to survive lockdown, there really is no excuse for some larger retailers to be keeping savings for themselves during the pandemic. For customers to be charged fairly at the pumps wholesale savings must be passed on.
“If you want to save money on fuel, buy an economical car and fill it up at a supermarket. Although if you have a local and convenient garage that you like using, do continue to give it your support.”
But Which? says the CAA is failing the consumers it is supposed to protect
Review considered actions by airlines during the coronavirus pandemic
Civil Aviation Authority action has led to airlines making commitments to improve performance without requiring formal enforcement action
Quality of service and performance from most airlines has improved in response to bilateral engagement and the review, leading to refunds now being paid out faster
Civil Aviation Authority warns other European and international airlines that the consumers right to a refund must be protected
The UK Civil Aviation Authority has been reviewing the refund policies and performance of UK airlines and three of the largest international operators to the UK. A further five international airlines were included due to the level of consumer feedback and concerns that refunds were not being paid during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Civil Aviation Authority review is based on its own investigations, as well as information provided to us by consumers across email and social media, as well as through consumer bodies including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Northern Ireland Consumer Council and Which?.
At the start of the review, some airlines were not paying refunds, with others facing potential backlogs of numerous months.
We investigated airlines’ policies and practices to establish whether they were placing barriers in the way of consumers requesting refunds, through unclear messaging, difficult to navigate customer services and under-resourced call centres.
While we recognise that the coronavirus pandemic was an unprecedented situation for the aviation industry, our consumer team has worked to protect consumer rights and to influence airlines to change their processes and practices in order to improve performance in providing refunds.
The Civil Aviation Authority now has evidence that shows that since it launched its review, and its wide-ranging engagement programme with airlines, all UK airlines are now paying refunds. Call centre wait times have reduced, in some cases significantly, and customer service messaging has provided greater clarity on consumers’ rights to a refund for cancelled flights.
Our review found that a number of airlines were not performing adequately. We have gained immediate commitments from these airlines to improve their performance and the time taken to provide refunds to consumers, without requiring enforcement action.
This is the most immediate way of providing benefits to consumers as enforcement processes can take a considerable amount of time to complete given the potential for legal proceedings. We have previously called for stronger, more immediate, powers to act to protect consumer rights.
Other European airlines were not initially within the scope of our review due to discussions taking place between National Enforcement Bodies, European governments and the EU Commission. Engaging with these other EU airlines at that point would have potentially cut across these other discussions.
However, we have today written to a further 30 major European and international airlines that operate services to and from the UK to highlight the results of our review, and to warn them not to deny consumers their right to a refund. We will not hesitate to take further action against any airlines where necessary.
Commenting on the review, Richard Moriarty, Chief Executive of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, said: “The airlines we have reviewed have responded by significantly enhancing their performance, reducing their backlogs, and improving their processing speeds in the interests of consumers.
“Although we have taken into account the serious operational challenges many airlines have faced, we have been clear that customers cannot be let down, and that airlines must pay refunds as soon as possible.
“There is still work to do. We have required commitments from airlines as they continue the job of paying customer refunds. Should any airline fall short of the commitments they have made, we will not hesitate to take any further action where required.”
Summary statements for each airline are available on CAA website at the link below:
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“The regulator is failing the consumers it is supposed to protect. The reality is that people are still owed millions of pounds in refunds, are facing financial and emotional turmoil, and continue to be fobbed off by a number of airlines who have been brazenly breaking the law for months.
“These airlines will now feel they can continue to behave terribly having faced no penalty or sanction.
“It is obvious that the CAA does not have the right tools to take effective action against airlines that show disregard towards passengers and the law, but more worryingly, it’s not clear the regulator has the appetite to use them.
“The government must use this opportunity to bring in much-needed reforms, including giving regulators greater powers to take swift and meaningful action, but consumers need assurances that these will actually be used against lawbreaking companies.”
Darren Jones, Chair of Westminster’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee, has written to Secretary of State Alok Sharma outlining a number of key issues for the UK Government to address in its approach to support for business and workers as the country emerges from the Covid-19 lockdown.
The correspondence to the Secretary of State recognises the efforts of many workers and businesses who rose to the challenges brought about during the pandemic.
The letter also highlights a number of issues, including gaps in support for workers, the tapering of support for workers through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), and the treatment of workers during the pandemic and health & safety issues.
The letter tackles a number of areas concerning the Government’s support for businesses, recommending the Government review the success of the various loan schemes and the behavior of banks, and also highlighting problems arising from unpaid business rent and the calls for targeted support for sectors that are likely to continue to be hit by restrictions which threaten their future revenue and viability.
Darren Jones, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee said: “The Business Department and the Treasury deserve significant credit for their efforts in addressing the unprecedented challenges faced by business and workers following the impact of Covid-19.
“Given the evolving situation around Covid-19, it’s inevitable that issues would emerge concerning the effectiveness of the Government’s support package and its impact on workers and businesses.
“However, it is also the case that the alarm over gaps in the Government’s support, such as for women, and those affecting freelancers and agency workers, were being raised repeatedly by those affected and yet these warnings continued to go unheeded.
“Rishi Sunak echoed a previous Chancellor in suggesting that the coronavirus has seen us all in it together. However, it’s clear that the reality of the economic lockdown is that its impact has not been shared out evenly and that it is falling very heavily on some parts of our economy.
“For example, we heard from sectors, including retail, the creative industries and manufacturing, who expressed concern over increasing redundancies in the wake of the furlough scheme changes coming in this weekend.
“It’s clear that some sectors of our economy will continue to face very challenging conditions. The shutdown of the aviation and aerospace sector will, for example, have a longer-term impact on these industries compared to others. In some parts of hospitality and in other sectors too, difficult trading conditions and continuing restrictions threaten future revenue and their viability.
“It’s important the Government quickly learns the lessons of recent months so that they can act in future with more policy sophistication and transparency and be able to step up and deliver the most effective support possible to workers and businesses.
“If we face the prospect of a second-wave and the likelihood of increased local lock-downs, it’s essential the Government looks again at its approach to sector support and to the additional measures which will be necessary to secure our economic recovery, help businesses prosper and enable workers to protect their livelihoods”.
The letter to the Secretary of State notes the examples highlighted by Which? of price-gouging, profiteering, and the inability of consumers to obtain refunds which they were legally entitled to when their holidays and flights were cancelled.
The correspondence also notes the comments from Lord Tyrie, former Chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority, stating that the pandemic had revealed that the CMA needed new powers to deal with profiteering.
The Committee calls for the Government to undertake a review of the powers and responsibilities of the CMA, and other consumer regulation enforcers, to address bad business practices and the effective enforcement of consumer law and the action needed to tackle market abuses, such as profiteering, that took place during the pandemic.
The letter to the Secretary of State highlights issues around the impact of late payments and the problems that many small businesses were experiencing throughout the UK’s supply chains because of cash flow problems.
Following evidence from SMEs, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), and the Small Business Commissioner (SBC) on these issues, the Committee recommends the SBC be given additional powers to proactively investigate late payments, that the Prompt Payment Code be made compulsory, and that late payers should be excluded from government contracts.
Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said:“Our research has highlighted terrible practices during the coronavirus pandemic, including airlines that have refused to refund passengers and sellers that have unjustifiably bumped up prices on essential goods.
“In too many situations consumers have been left with nowhere to turn, which is why regulators need to be given stronger and more targeted powers so they can take effective enforcement to tackle the types of bad practice we’ve seen during the crisis.”
Despite being more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky, Chanel No 5 and high-end champagne, most people buy branded ink for their printer rather than cheaper third-party alternatives even though they are just as good, according to new Which? research.
The consumer champion found that just one set of replacement cartridges for the Epson Expression Premium XP-900 costs £96. This means that a customer replacing their ink five times can expect to pay £480, yet a third-party alternative deemed of similar quality was found to cost a mere £70 for five replacement sets – a saving of up to £410.
At £2.04 a millilitre, the Epson printer ink was one of several branded versions found to be more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky (£1.71), Chanel No 5. (£1.13) and premium champagne (30p).
Despite the extortionate cost of original ink cartridges, the majority of people told Which? that they regularly buy branded cartridges (58%) over cheaper third-party alternatives – and some have never tried non-branded at all (41%).
The survey of almost 9,000 printer owners revealed that many people are concerned that third-party ink may be incompatible with their printer (43%), print quality would be compromised (30%) or that the third-party ink might damage their printer (30%).
However, in reality, the survey revealed that only one in 10 (11%) of those who use third-party ink regularly experienced cartridges not working, just four per cent experienced leakage and only three per cent found print quality lower than expected.
Many third-party brands also offer guarantees if the cartridge doesn’t work, while some will even repair or replace the printer for free.
What’s more, those surveyed thought some third-party brands were easier to use than original cartridges from HP and Epson ink. And the same goes for toner: Which? found that people with laser printers were much happier with third-party brands than original branded toner.
However, incompatibly isn’t a completely unfounded worry. Some HP printers are designed to prevent customers from using third-party ink by employing something it calls ‘Dynamic Security’, which recognises third-party cartridges and stops them working.
Although HP says this protects its customers, the thousands of people who took part in Which?’s survey found that third-party cartridges offer much better value and even, a better customer experience.
Which? has heard from many consumers who are unhappy that they can no longer use their favourite brands, with some even buying a new printer to avoid the ongoing high cost of replacement HP cartridges.
Which? believes that this is completely wrong and choosing to use third-party cartridges should be down to an individual’s choice, not HP’s.
In the US, a lawsuit resulted in some customers being reimbursed by HP for the costs of replacement cartridges, printers and repairs following a class action settlement.
Under the out-of-court settlement, HP agreed that Dynamic Security wouldn’t be reactivated in the affected inkjet printers. HP denies that it did anything wrong.
This hasn’t yet happened for UK consumers, so customers will need to carefully consider how much they could end up paying over the lifespan of their printer as it could be more than they bargained for.
Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said:“Printer ink shouldn’t cost the earth and we’ve found that there are lots of unbranded products that are just as good as their branded counterparts and only a fraction of the cost – so you can keep your hard-earned cash for actual luxuries rather than spending it on printing.
“Choosing third-party cartridges should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. If you are in the market for a new printer, it might be best to avoid HP if you don’t want to fork out for expensive HP ink cartridges.”
