Tag: Which?

Airline refunds: ‘marked improvement’, says CAA

The UK Civil Aviation Authority is reviewing the refund policies of all UK airlines, as well as a number of international airlines that operate flights to and from the UK. The review began in May and is considering how airlines are handling refunds for flight-only bookings during the coronavirus pandemic.

We have published guidance and advice for both industry and consumers on this important issue throughout the COVID crisis. We support airlines offering vouchers and rebooking alternatives where it makes sense for the consumer, but we have reiterated to airlines that they must provide cash refunds to passengers who request this where a flight has been cancelled. 

We do not expect airlines to systematically deny consumers their right to a refund, and our review is considering whether any further action needs to be taken to protect consumer rights.

Airline Performance

Of the eighteen airlines contacted, all have engaged with us on the issues that we have raised, and all have confirmed to us that they are now paying refunds. We have grouped airlines by performance in three categories:

1.      Acceptable performance

2.      Requiring transparency improvements

3.      Requiring processing time improvements

Acceptable performance

Through our review we have identified a selection of airlines that are paying refunds quickly and that do not have a sizeable backlog of refund requests. While regulations state that refunds should be paid within seven days of the request, we understand that there are operational challenges that airlines are facing in the current circumstances that make this very challenging to meet.

We will continue to monitor the performance of these airlines, but as things stand we do not expect further work to be required unless there is a material change in performance. 

Requiring transparency improvements

Our review has identified a second group that, based on passenger complaints, did not appear to be providing refunds at all. Having engaged with these airlines, the Civil Aviation Authority can now confirm that these airlines are all paying refunds.

A number of airlines have now introduced new systems for processing refunds. More work remains to be done by this group of airlines to make it clear to passengers that they are entitled to a refund and show that there is a straightforward process for claiming it. 

We will allow these airlines a short period to make the necessary improvements before we reach a definitive view on their performance.

Requiring processing time improvements

Our review has identified a third group of airlines which have substantial backlogs of refund claims and which, in our view, are taking too long to process refunds.  

This group includes some major carriers with large backlogs of refund requests extending to many months. The Civil Aviation Authority has asked these airlines to provide commitments that they will speed up refund processing timescales. 

We have received responses from a number of airlines agreeing to this request. We will assess the suitability of these commitments and, should we accept them, we will monitor the airlines’ performance against them. If performance does not improve in line with the commitments, the Civil Aviation Authority will not hesitate to take enforcement action.

Conclusion

This is the first update the Civil Aviation Authority has provided on its review of airline refund practices. We intend to publish a further, more detailed update later this month.

Only a minority group of airlines have been consistently providing consumers with refunds in an acceptable timeframe, however we have noted a marked improvement across most airlines since our review commenced. We expect this direction of travel to be maintained.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “This update from the regulator confirms what we have been highlighting to it for months – that airlines are continuing to disregard the law and withhold huge sums of money from their passengers during a time that has placed incredible stress on people’s financial and emotional wellbeing.

“The time for monitoring and performance reviews has long passed. Airlines have been breaking the law on refunds for months, and to delay action for any longer goes against the regulator’s claims to be on the side of consumers.

“We need to see urgent enforcement action to hold airlines to account, set a higher standard for the months ahead, and demonstrate that there are real consequences to breaking the law on refunds.”

Vulnerable still struggling to get food as Which? calls for urgent action

Which? is calling for action to help the most vulnerable after it found that more than a quarter could be at risk of going hungry because they have faced difficulty accessing basic food and essential groceries.

With shielding measures due to end soon in some parts of the UK, the consumer champion is calling on the UK’s four governments to extend free food parcels and other support for those who need it, to avoid millions of people being left behind if support is suddenly withdrawn.

Months into lockdown, Which? has found huge inconsistencies across the four nations with many people still finding the current system chaotic and overly complicated. 

Which? heard reports of care home workers forced to queue in busy supermarkets several times a day for basics like bread and milk – risking further spread of the virus – because they could not secure the delivery slots that they needed to provide for their residents.

Other concerning reports included a 93-year-old lady who had to wait 11 weeks for her first food parcel despite registering in week one and a 71-year-old with shingles who had to wait a month between supermarket click and collect slots.

The new research from Which? found that more than one in four (28%) vulnerable people across the UK had faced difficulty getting the food provision they needed in the week before they were surveyed (from 29th May to 17th June).

Which? found that the group of people struggling the most to get vital groceries were those who identified as being situationally vulnerable, meaning they are not at clinically increased risk from coronavirus but still require help accessing food because they are visually impaired or have learning difficulties, for example.

In the UK two in five (40%) situationally vulnerable people reported having difficulties getting essentials in the week prior to being surveyed, however, across the home nations, Which? found an alarmingly mixed picture. 

In Wales and Scotland, this number rose to nearly half (47% and 46% respectively), compared to almost two in five (38%) in Northern Ireland and more than a quarter (27%) in England. 

Even among the shielded group – those who are the most high-risk to coronavirus and for whom the most help, including priority supermarket delivery slots and food parcels, has been offered – Which? found that there was still a very high proportion of people facing difficulty getting the food and essentials needed in the week they were surveyed.

This figure was highest in England where a third (33%) of those shielding had struggled, while three in 10 (31%) in Northern Ireland, over a quarter in Scotland (27%) and a quarter in Wales (25%) also faced difficulties.

Those who were previously told to self-isolate because they are over 70, pregnant or otherwise considered clinically vulnerable had had the fewest problems getting food in the last week according to Which?’s survey. A fifth (20%), however, did struggle.

Officials say changes to the shielding guidance will only happen if the rate of community transmission remains low, but the governments in both England and Northern Ireland have said that free essential food boxes will stop being delivered at the end of July.

In both of these nations, those considered high-risk will still qualify for priority online supermarket delivery slots as well as being offered help with medicine deliveries and getting to medical appointments.

Which? is concerned that while the easing of lockdown restrictions may make life easier for people who are comfortable with and able to go into shops again, there is still a huge risk that many of those who have already been struggling will now be cut further adrift as they may still not be able to leave their homes to get groceries – especially if it involves long queues, taking a taxi or using public transport.

Which? is calling for access to free food boxes, priority delivery slots and other relevant assistance to be made available for as long as medical advice or practical restrictions, such as social distancing, are in place. The help should be extended to include not only the most-high risk but also those who are situationally vulnerable and have so far been sidelined.

This would mean that central and local governments will need to accurately assess and identify which consumers remain vulnerable so that they can also be given access to appropriate support such as priority supermarket delivery slots or local food provision through other means.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy at Which?, said: “It is a real concern that months into lockdown, the current system of food provision is still not working for so many of those who need it the most. 

“Some people could now be looking at a cliff edge where shielding restrictions are lifted and they are left to fend for themselves, cut off from outside help in getting essential groceries.

“Which? is now calling for the UK’s four governments to work with the food industry, local authorities and charities to ensure a longer-term plan for supporting all of those who are at risk and need support is in place by the end of July, so that no vulnerable person faces difficulties in accessing the basic food supplies they need.”

‘A National Disgrace’: British Airways lambasted in Westminster report

British Airways’ treatment of staff ‘a national disgrace’, say MPs

UK-based airlines and other aviation employers should not proceed hastily with large scale redundancies and restructuring to employees’ terms and conditions until the Job Retention Scheme ends in October 2020 and they have had the opportunity to consider the Government’s plans to help the sector restart and recover, say MPs.

In a report exploring the gravity of the crisis facing the UK’s aviation sector, the Transport Committee says fundamental decisions about people’s livelihoods should not be made prematurely.

Several aviation companies have announced redundancies, despite accessing the Government’s Job Retention Scheme designed to help businesses severely affected by the pandemic to retain employees and protect the economy.

The actions of British Airways and parent company, International Airlines Group, draw particular criticism. The committee’s view is that BA’s current consultation on staffing changes is a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut 12,000 jobs and to downgrade the terms and conditions of approximately 35,000 employees. The consultation is due to end on June 15th.

Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The impact of coronavirus may sadly mean that the loss of some jobs in the aviation sector is justified. The behaviour of British Airways and its parent company, IAG, is not.

“It falls well below the standards expected from any employer, especially in light of the scale of taxpayer subsidy, at this time of national crisis. It is unacceptable that a company would seek to drive this level of change under the cover of a pandemic.

“We looked closely at BA’s plans to consult on at least 12000 redundancies and change the terms and conditions of the bulk of its employees. Many submitted written evidence to our inquiry and we thank them.

“As a committee, we have sought to examine this further and drive change using the means open to us through the House, asking Urgent Questions, seeking debates, introducing legislation and putting questions directly to the Prime Minister.

“We will continue to bring pressure where we can, including the airport slot allocation process. This wanton destruction of a loyal work force cannot appear to go without sanction – by Government, parliamentarians or paying passengers who may choose differently in future. We view it is as a national disgrace.”

The introduction of a 14 day blanket quarantine for travellers to the UK from other countries will damage the recovery of the sector and the wider economy, says the report.

Should the conditions allow in late June, the Committee calls for the quarantine policy to be abandoned when it is next reviewed and urges Government to introduce a more flexible and risk-based approach to border control, using alternatives such as targeted quarantines, ‘air bridges’ and temperature screening. In defending its decision, the Government should clearly set out the evidence it used to reach its decision.

Thousands of passengers who booked holidays and flights are still waiting on refunds from airlines and travel operators in accordance with their legal obligations, causing them additional stress and hardship.

The Government should consider whether protections for passengers can be built into the planned Airline Insolvency Bill.

MPs also recommend that the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for enforcing current rules, conduct a speedy review of its powers to ensure it can enforce the rights of passengers in an effective and timely way.

Acknowledging the extraordinary pressures on providers, the Committee asks the Department for Transport to clarify why an extension to the legal deadlines for issuing refunds was not implemented in the UK.

Four months into the crisis, today’s report says the Government’s strategy should be more developed.

The Government’s Aviation Restart, Recovery and Engagement Unit is a welcome first step but the Government should bring forward a strategy for the aviation sector as soon as possible. To stimulate demand and protect businesses, the Committee recommended a temporary six month suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and 12 month business rates relief for airlines and airports across the UK, as is currently the case in Scotland.

Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, added: “Few industries have been affected more by the coronavirus pandemic than aviation. Thousands of planes, and thousands of passengers, have been grounded, resulting in a 97% reduction in passenger flights compared to the previous year.

“This vital sector of the UK economy could lose more than £20 billion in revenue. Government must press on with a collaborative strategy for recovery.

“It is imperative that the UK Government finds a way to get aviation back on its feet. We don’t believe this fits with a blanket 14 day quarantine period for travellers to the UK.

“In today’s report, we recommend a more agile response. We also outline our support for a temporary suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and support with business rates.

“Passenger confidence in airlines and travel operators, dented by unnecessarily difficult refund processes, must be rebuilt. We recommend the Government considers whether new protections for passengers should be introduced ahead of future pandemics or other extraordinary circumstances.”

The Committee’s inquiry is part of a wider look at the impact of coronavirus on UK transport. This first look at aviation did not examine the longer-term implications for air travel and MPs intend to return to this once the immediate crisis has subsided.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “The travel industry’s handling of cancellations and refunds has left consumers out of pocket and trust in the sector at a record low – so the committee is right to call for the government to introduce measures to improve protections for travellers.

“Which? has been calling for airlines and holiday firms to comply with the law on customer refunds and for clarity around Refund Credit Notes since the sector was thrown into chaos earlier this year, so action is long overdue.

“The government must urgently set out how it will take these recommendations forward, to restore trust in the industry before it is permanently damaged and ensure customers receive the billions of pounds they are collectively owed in refunds.”

More than 100,000 hackable cameras in UK homes, warns Which?

More than 100,000 wireless cameras active in UK homes are vulnerable to hackers due to a combination of serious security flaws with the devices themselves and a popular app many of them use, a new Which? investigation has found.

The flaws, which affect dozens of camera brands made by the China-based company HiChip and sold cheaply on online marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, Wish and AliExpress, allow hackers to find the exact location of the user’s home and target other devices linked to their home broadband network.

If these vulnerabilities were exploited, the hacker could even access live footage and speak via the camera’s microphone – a serious concern for many people who use these devices as baby monitors connected via the internet.

Worryingly, these attacks can still be exploited even if users change their password.

Which? is advising anyone who believes their camera could be affected to stop using it immediately. The consumer champion is warning people against buying products with this security flaw, and believes that such devices should not be manufactured and put on sale.

The issue stems from the weak Unique Identification numbers (UID), often found on a sticker on the side of the cameras, which can be easily discovered and targeted by hackers.

Using the UID numbers, hackers can target users of the popular CamHi app – used by millions of people to view camera footage – when they connect to their camera. The attacker can then steal the device’s username and password, and use the stolen credentials to gain full access to the camera without the user’s knowledge.

Which?, working with US-based security expert Paul Marrapese, tested and verified this security flaw in five wireless cameras from Accfly, Elite Security, ieGeek, Genbolt and SV3C – all of which were purchased from Amazon and available on other online marketplaces.

In total, 47 wireless camera brands worldwide have been identified as potentially having this security flaw, including 32 currently or previously sold in the UK. These brands include Alptop, Besdersec, COOAU, CPVAN, Ctronics, Dericam, Jennov, LEFTEK, Luowice, QZT and Tenvis. But Which? believes any wireless camera that uses the CamHi app could be compromised by these flaws.

Which? shared its findings with HiChip, the company behind many of these camera brands and the CamiHi app, which is based in Shenzhen – dubbed “China’s Silicon Valley” – due to its huge market in electronics products.

The company maintained its cameras have “low-security risk”, but pledged to work with Which? and a US-based security expert on improvements. However, the consumer champion has been unable to verify that the proposed updates will fix any of these vulnerabilities. Which? also believes that fundamental flaws in the design and security of existing cameras mean they remain at risk in consumers’ homes.

Around two-thirds (23) of the brands sold in the UK are currently available at Amazon UK. Which? reported its concerns and asked Amazon to remove listings while investigating the risk they pose. Amazon has so far declined to remove any from its site.

More than half (19) of the brands are on sale on eBay who maintained that the devices comply with their existing policies and were safe to use, but encouraged users to take appropriate security precautions.

Six of the cameras can be bought on AliExpress who told Which? it takes “product safety very seriously” and has rules that require third-party merchants to comply with local laws and regulations. Only four camera brands were available on Wish.com but it said it has alerted sellers who list these cameras on its website to investigate Which?’s findings urgently before it takes appropriate action.

In January, the Department of Digital, Media, Culture and Sports (DCMS) announced plans to introduce new laws requiring smart devices sold in the UK to adhere to security requirements. Worryingly, none of the brands Which? tested would meet these requirements.

The government has begun taking the first critical steps to ensure connected devices are safe and meet minimum security requirements before they go on sale, however just over 12,000 of these security-risk cameras have been activated in UK homes since March, so the government must move faster to stop the market being flooded with dangerous devices.

Kate Bevan, Which? Computing Editor, said: “People may believe they are picking up a bargain wireless camera that can bring a sense of security – when in fact they could be unwittingly inviting hackers into their home or workplace.

“Anyone who has one of these cameras in their home should turn it off and stop using it immediately, while all consumers should be careful when shopping around – cheap isn’t always cheerful, especially when it comes to unknown brands.

“The government must push forward with its plans for legislation to require connected devices to meet certain security standards and ensure this is backed by strong enforcement.”

A fridge too far!

Despite costing hundreds of pounds more than their standard counterparts, smart appliances could be rendered obsolete after as little as two years as manufacturers stop providing vital software updates, according to a new Which? investigation.

The consumer champion calculated that, on average, customers pay £855 more for a smart fridge-freezer than a standard one, £259 more for a smart dishwasher and £190 more for a smart tumble dryer.

Which? research has found that dishwashers and washing machines typically last for 10 years before they’re replaced due to faults or poor performance. Fridge-freezers and tumble dryers typically last for 11 years.

When Which? asked its members how long they thought a smart appliance might last, 69% per cent said they would expect it to last the same length of time as a non-smart equivalent.

But many manufacturers are failing to give clarity about the length of time their products would be supported with important security updates – without which they would potentially be rendered a security risk.

Smart appliances come with a range of useful features that allow users to control them remotely using a phone, save money by improving efficiency, or send alerts to engineers when a fault is connected.

However, without regular security and software updates, they could lose smart functionality and leave all the data on the owner’s home network open to hackers – raising the environmentally disastrous prospect of expensive machines that still work being replaced before their time and even ending up in landfill because they are not supported or secure.

When Which? asked major manufacturers about how long their products would receive vital software updates, it found most were not being transparent, and one suggested that it could even stop providing security support after only a couple of years.

The majority of manufacturers claimed they would offer updates for what they termed ‘the life of  the product’ – but refused to say how long they would expect that to be.

Samsung said ‘a minimum of two years’. Hoover/Candy claimed an appliance’s lifetime depends on factors like regularity of use and whether the appliance is loaded or maintained correctly.

BSH (which makes Bosch, Neff and Siemens appliances) said that it is difficult to provide a specific length of time for updates across its smart products but reiterated that it would provide updates for the lifetime of the product. Whirlpool stated that it does not have a timeframe for updates.

LG said that if issues are detected, updates can be rolled out to consumers, but it did not confirm any timeframes for the duration of support. Beko said ‘a maximum of 10 years’.

Only Miele was definitive. It said from the outset that it would support its smart appliances with 10 years of security updates, matching Which?’s research that shows how long these products typically last.

It tends to reserve smart functionality for its higher-end products, often costing more than £1,000, and they sometimes have 10-year parts and labour guarantees too.

Which? wants manufacturers to be transparent about how long customers will receive the adequate updates and support needed to ensure the functionality of smart features when they buy an appliance.

Currently, none of the manufacturers Which? spoke to have published a length of update policy in their terms of use.

Most of these products should work without an internet connection but it might not always be the case. Losing the smart features could mean that customers have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires products to be “of satisfactory quality”, “fit for purpose” and “as described”.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that in Which?’s survey six in 10 people (61%) who do not already own a smart appliance said they would not consider buying one.

A new EU directive could make it clearer where owners of smart appliances stand. If adopted in the UK, the directive would mean consumers have more protections with digital elements of appliances, including an obligation to guarantee the smart functioning of a product (through updates, for example).

The UK government has also set out plans for legislation requiring smart appliances to meet certain security standards. These proposals would oblige manufacturers to state the minimum length of time the device will receive security updates.

Which? will closely scrutinise the development of legislation around security standards to ensure it  works to prevent security-risk products ending up in people’s homes and will continue to put pressure on manufacturers to give their customers the transparency they need to make informed decisions about buying smart products.

Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said: “’Being able to check the contents of your fridge from your smartphone or having your dishwasher order itself more salt when it starts running low may seem appealing, but with some appliances costing up to an extra £900, these smart features don’t come cheap.

“Until manufacturers are clear and upfront about how long they will support these products for, consumers could be better off avoiding smart appliances that might turn ‘dumb’ after only a few years and stick to more reliable and significantly cheaper non-smart alternatives.”

New health measures for travellers to Scotland

The UK government’s plans for 14 days self-quarantining of arrivals will spell disaster for Scotlands aviation industry – GMB 

GMB, the union for aviation staff, has described the UK government’s plans to introduce self-quarantine for UK arrivals as ‘ill thought out’. 

From today (Monday 08 June) arrivals to the UK will be expected to quarantine for 14 day save for a list of exempted professions.

GMB believes the move lacks scientific evidence and will be disastrous for the aviation industry and the economy in Scotland.

The union has launched the Save Our Airports campaign with six key demands which include extending the 80% furlough scheme for another 12 months, a financial package to support the aviation industry and a commitment to work with unions to deliver a way forward for the industry.

In 2018 the aviation industry supported almost 23,000 jobs in Scotland and contributed more than £240 million to the economy. The gross median salary of an air transport worker in 2018 was around £30,000.

In recent weeks many of these workers have been risking their own health facilitating cargo flights containing vital medical, food supplies and PPE to aid in the national effort against Covid 19 infections.

The union argue that airports are of huge significance to regional economies; providing highly skilled jobs which are often difficult to replicate, whilst also contributing to the creation of almost 126,000 supply chain jobs.

GMB national officer Nadine Houghton said: “The UK Government’s plans for self-quarantining arrivals to the UK will prove disastrous for an already beleaguered aviation industry. 

“This is a populist move, made without any real scientific evidence or consultation with the industry and unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the sector.

“Many people forget the huge significance of the aviation industry to the economy of Scotland and the impact this quarantine will have on much needed jobs here.

“Aviation jobs aren’t just about airlines, cabin crew and pilots; the aviation industry provides important supply chain jobs to baggage handlers, security, fire crews, taxi drivers and retail workers.

“If the UK government don’t end this ill thought out policy and step in with a bespoke financial package for aviation then thousands of regional aviation jobs will be lost. It’s not too late for the UK government to act.”

The new public health measures come into force today (8 June) to help suppress coronavirus (COVID-19) and prevent new cases being brought into Scotland.

The range of measures, which will be broadly similar to those in other parts of the UK, will include:

  • a requirement for residents and visitors entering the UK from abroad to self-isolate for 14 days
  • the completion of an online passenger locator form by all travellers prior to travel to supply contact details, travel details and the address of where they will self-isolate
  • spot checks at the border by Border Force, who may impose fines on travellers who refuse to comply
  • arrangements for some of those arriving into Scotland to be contacted during their period of self-isolation for the provision of public health advice and information
  • powers for police to impose a fixed penalty notice for anyone failing to comply with the mandatory conditions, with the ability to report persistent offenders to the Procurator Fiscal for potential prosecution

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said: “We are, as a country and across the world, continuing to deal with unprecedented challenges that this pandemic brings. These public health measures will play an important part in helping to prevent further spread of the disease.

“These steps are aimed at protecting people and ensuring that we limit spread when our own infection rates are falling. However, they are temporary and will not be in place any longer than deemed necessary to protect public health – as such, they will be reviewed after three weeks.”

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “Over the past few weeks, the UK government has caused endless confusion among travellers over whether holidays can go ahead.

“Even today, as it ushers in 14-day quarantine for UK arrivals, many consumers are confused as to whether the holiday they already have booked will take place due to the lack of consistent communication from the government.

“Meanwhile, the absence of a definitive date from the FCO on when its travel ban will remain in force until continues to allow travel firms to sell holidays departing in the next few weeks that almost certainly can’t go ahead.

“Not only will those customers not get a holiday, but they may not get their money back either – as some travel firms continue to delay and deny refunds.”

Cashing Out: urgent action needed to protect payment lifeline

Vulnerable people risk being left with no way to pay for essential products and services as the coronavirus crisis further accelerates the UK’s shift to a cashless society, new Which? research reveals. The consumer organisation is calling for government action to ensure that the cash system does not collapse at a time when millions of people still rely on it. 

A survey by the consumer champion found that half (51%) of those looking after the finances or grocery shopping of someone else had been paid in cash in return for doing shopping, highlighting its continued importance in communities across the country and the huge challenge that a cashless society presents for those who are not yet ready or able to make digital payments.

As consumers are also experiencing difficulties paying with as well as taking out cash, Which? is pressing for action from the government and financial regulators to ensure millions of people aren’t left abandoned as a result of the outbreak that’s put additional pressure on the UK’s already fragile cash network.

The Which? study of more than 2,000 people, conducted at the start of May, reveals that nearly one in five reported that they were managing finances or ordering food and essentials for someone outside of their immediate household.

Of those, 32 per cent had bought food from a shop for others and been paid for it in cash, and 29 per cent had ordered for someone online and been paid for it with cash – while some responded that they had done both.

Which? has heard of numerous cases where cash is essential for this sort of help, including one person who is reimbursed in cash for delivering supplies to their vulnerable 91-year-old uncle, and another who shops for neighbours twice a week – after cash and a shopping list have been posted through their door.

The research also highlighted that one in 10 people were refused by shops when trying to pay for items with cash, at a time when only those that were permitted to sell essential goods were open. A quarter of those were left unable to purchase the item in question on at least one occasion as they had no alternative means of payment.

And while nearly one in three people reported still using cash to make some or all of their payments, seven per cent said they had found it more difficult to take out cash since the outbreak began.

With many retailers now encouraging non-cash payments and banks reducing branch opening hours, Which? supports schemes introduced by banks and businesses to provide access or alternatives to cash during this crisis.

However, it remains unclear how effective these have been at addressing the root of the problem. It believes these are unlikely to be a viable long-term fix, and that cash-dependent consumers could be left completely excluded from engaging with the economy if cash is not urgently protected.

Despite the clear need for cash, the coronavirus pandemic has pushed the cash system that millions of people still rely on into deeper peril, just months after the government vowed to protect it.

In March, the government committed to legislating to protect access to cash for as long as people need it, after warnings that the system could collapse within two years. This followed investigations from Which? that found the UK had lost a staggering 10,500 free-to-use cash machines since 2017, and over a third of bank branches in less than five years.

However, the coronavirus pandemic has drastically reduced the timeframe for intervention, and the government’s pledge risks becoming obsolete if current trends continue to go unchallenged, which risks cutting off millions of people from the main form of payment they rely on to purchase essential products and services.

Coronavirus has rapidly accelerated the decline in cash use. Latest figures from Notemachine, one of the UK’s largest ATM operators, show that cash withdrawals have reduced by 45 per cent since lockdown began – although the average value withdrawn has increased by 13 per cent.

And while figures from Link, which manages the UK’s largest cashpoint network, show that approximately £1 billion is still being withdrawn from ATMs every week, it says the overall decline means that the current level of cash usage is now at a level that was not expected for five years.

As well as urgently introducing the legislation it committed to in the budget, Which? is calling on the government to take all necessary steps to ensure people can continue to use cash to pay for essential goods and services during the coronavirus pandemic.

This includes providing support for businesses to accept cash and offering clear guidance on how to handle banknotes and coins safely.

It also believes the FCA must collect and publish information about emergency measures that individual banks have put in place, including an assessment of their long-term suitability and effectiveness.

Which?’s proposals have been backed by a diverse group of organisations that all share its concerns about the implications of the rapid decline of cash availability and acceptance. These include the Access to Cash Review – led by Natalie Ceeney, Age UK, the RSA, Independent Age, Alzheimer’s Society and Link.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The coronavirus outbreak has shown that cash remains vital to many consumers, particularly for vulnerable people who rely on it to pay for essential supplies. 

“As a result, it’s vital that the already fragile cash system is not left to collapse completely as the UK’s shift to a cashless society accelerates.

“The government must urgently press ahead with the legislation it has already committed to before it becomes obsolete, as failure to do so risks excluding millions of people from engaging in the economy.”

Four in five Ryanair passengers still waiting for refunds

The majority of Ryanair passengers surveyed who have asked for a refund for a cancelled flight during the coronavirus crisis are still waiting for their money back, according to new research from Which?.

Which? surveyed nearly 2,800 airline customers that had flights cancelled since mid-March as a result of the global pandemic, to find out about their experience with their airline. Of those, over 1,600 people told Which? they asked their airline for a cash refund.

Ryanair was the worst of the UK’s four biggest airlines for processing refunds for cancelled flights, with 84 per cent of those who asked for a refund telling Which? they have still not received their money back.

Just five per cent of Ryanair customers surveyed said they had their money returned to them within seven days – the time frame that EU carriers are legally obliged to process refunds within. Only one in six (16%) Ryanair customers have received a refund at all.

Ryanair customers have continuously complained to the consumer champion about the airline’s approach to processing refunds, with numerous changes to its approach to refunds confusing customers of their options.

Despite initially telling customers it was processing refunds at the beginning of the crisis, customers reported that Ryanair provided refund forms that didn’t work, before attempting to force vouchers on passengers who had specifically requested refunds. It also repeatedly changed the timeframe for receiving a refund, suggesting at one point customers may have to wait up to 12 months for their money back.

Easyjet customers also reported finding it difficult to get a refund. Just one in seven (14%) Easyjet customers received a refund within seven days, and around three in five (63%) are still waiting for their money back.

In contrast, a quarter (23%) of British Airways customers and one in five (19%) Jet2 customers are still waiting for their money back, with four in 10 (39%) BA customers receiving their money back within the legal time frame, and three in 10 (29%) Jet2 customers refunded within the seven day window.

British Airways has previously been criticised for its approach to refunding customers, removing its online form for requesting a refund and instead directing customers to a phone line where they are often unable to speak to someone due to high call volumes.

Which? recently revealed that trust in the travel industry has reached an all-time low, with data from its Consumer Insight tracker showing that trust in airlines and holiday companies has dropped to its lowest score on record in the seven years the consumer champion has collected the data, following airlines’ handling of refunds for cancelled flights.

Following the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) announcing its investigation into airlines’ handling of refunds, Which? has launched a tool to allow consumers to report their airline to the regulator if they have been unable to get a refund for a cancelled flight, and is encouraging people to share their experiences.

Which? has also repeatedly called on the government to step in with urgent support for the industry, to allow airlines and holiday companies the financial means to refund their customers without fear of going bust, and to help restore trust in the travel industry.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “We have heard from thousands of frustrated passengers who have told us they are finding it almost impossible to get refunds they are legally entitled to from airlines, with some having waited months now without a penny returned to them.

“Some airlines are doing much better than others at refunding their customers, proving that while these are indeed difficult times for the industry, withholding customers’ money from them is simply inexcusable.

“The regulator and government cannot sit on their hands any longer. The CAA must urgently hold airlines that are brazenly breaking the law to account, and the government must set out how it will support the industry where necessary if airlines are unable to refund their customers without fear of going under.”

Time taken to refund British Airways Easyjet Jet2.com Ryanair
Within 7 days 39% 14% 29% 5%
Refund not yet received 23% 63% 19% 84%

Ryanair did not respond to Which?’s request for comment.

A spokesperson for British Airways said: “If a customer’s flight has been cancelled, they should call us to discuss their options. They can rebook, refund or choose to take a voucher to fly at a later date. Refunds can be requested at any point up to 12 months after the start date of the journey.”

A spokesperson for Easyjet said: “Customers on cancelled flights can transfer to an alternative flight free of charge or receive a voucher for the value of their booking online. Customers may also request a refund by submitting a claim in writing via a dedicated refund webform, online. We are processing refunds for customers and aim to do so in less than 28 days.”

A spokesperson for Jet2 said: “In view of the ongoing travel restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, we have taken the decision to recommence our flights and holidays programme on July 1st. The health and safety of our customers and colleagues is our absolute priority, and we are continuing to monitor the situation very closely.

“Like all other airlines and tour operators, the restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic have impacted us. With aircraft grounded, our focus has been on looking after the many thousands of customers whose flights and holidays have been affected, and we are very proud to have been repeatedly praised by customers, media outlets, industry commentators and consumer organisations for how we have been treating customers in response to the pandemic.

“We are continuing to operate a fully staffed call centre, and even though our teams are subject to the same difficulties and restrictions as everyone else, they are working tirelessly to proactively contact customers in departure date order to discuss their options. We believe that contacting customers in departure date order is the fairest way to deal with this, and the feedback we have received tells us this has been the right thing to do.

“We understand that these unprecedented events have had a huge impact on our customers, and we would like to thank them for their loyalty, understanding and patience.”

Report your airline to the regulator: https://action.which.co.uk/page/s/flight-complaint

 

Couples jilted at altar by wedding venues cancelling big day – and pocketing their cash

Wedding venues are potentially breaking the law by exploiting unfair terms and conditions to avoid refunding couples for cancellations due to coronavirus, a new Which? investigation reveals.

Many frustrated couples have contacted Which? as they are struggling to get refunds, often worth tens of thousands of pounds, from venues for weddings cancelled or postponed due to the coronavirus crisis, in line with the government’s March 23 ban on large gatherings for weddings.

Of the 25 couples Which? has spoken to, 20 said their wedding venue refused to offer a refund or made the process for obtaining a refund difficult. A similar proportion said they had not been offered like-for-like dates or offered a refund if the price for the postponed date was cheaper. 17 couples said their venue has charged a fee to rebook or cancel their wedding and 15 couples said their venue has introduced new terms and conditions.

The consumer champion is reporting 12 wedding venues and organisers to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It analysed the contracts of eight venues that had potentially unfair terms and conditions and heard from a further four couples whose venues were potentially breaching the regulator’s guidance on refunds and cancellations, which was issued last month after the CMA announced it was investigating this sector.

The CMA also outlined its expectations for businesses, in most cases, to refund customers if they cancel or cannot receive a service due to Government public health measures, including any non-refundable deposits or advance payments. It expects businesses to waive any admin fees for processing refunds too.

Which? received most complaints about the Bijou Weddings group, a family-run wedding venue chain. Some of the couples that had booked with Bijou said the venue told them just before the government announced a ban on weddings that not only had their weddings been cancelled, but that they were liable to pay a cancellation fee of 80 per cent of the total cost of their weddings.

In May, a number of Bijou customers reported new contract terms had appeared on the website, stating that couples could postpone if their original date was not possible due to the coronavirus pandemic, but with no reference to a refund. This would be in breach of the CMA’s guidance that states rebooking should not be offered instead of refunds.

Bijou told Which? the new contract uploaded to the site was a blank template and appeared due to an IT error. Which? has seen the new terms that appeared on the site after some couples were able to take a screenshot of the contract before it was removed.

By law, new terms and conditions must be fair and can be unenforceable if they give too much power to the business providing the service. Which? analysed the new and pre-existing terms and conditions from a number of wedding venues, including Bijou, and found some that could be seen as unfair and unenforceable as they significantly reduce customers’ rights.

Which? has also heard from Bijou customers who said the venue suggested they claim with their insurer to avoid refunding customers for cancelled weddings.

Claudia had booked her wedding at Bijou’s Botleys Mansion venue. When the venue cancelled and asked for an 80% cancellation fee, it suggested she claimed the money back from her insurer and used the money to rebook. Most insurers have refused to pay out for cancellations, so Claudia risked being left out of pocket and with no idea if or when she would be able to get her money back.

Most wedding insurers had stopped selling new policies by mid-March following a surge in demand. However, those with existing policies have found themselves caught between venues that refuse to pay out and insurers with unclear policies or “exclusion clauses” which mean they do not have to pay out either.

Another couple, Marcus and Georgina, said they had endured a “torturous” experience with the company. They were disappointed when Bijou’s Botleys Mansion refused to refund the price difference after their weekend wedding in June was postponed to a weekday. The venue insisted the CMA’s guidance would not entitle them to reimbursement if a like-for-like replacement is not available.

Emily and Louie, who had paid over £20,000 for their wedding at Bijou’s Cain Manor, said they “could not express the stress and heartbreak” caused by the venue who have not offered a like-for-like new date and refused to refund the difference.

Which? believes these complaints are just the tip of the iceberg and there could be an industry-wide issue when it comes to refunds and cancellations.

As well as two Bijou Weddings venues, Which? has shared information with the CMA on 10 other wedding venues who have potentially unfair terms and conditions or have potentially breached the regulator’s guidance, including Tournerbury Woods Estate in Hampshire.

The Hampshire-based venue claimed one couple would forfeit their fee if they wanted to rebook their cancelled May wedding for the same time next year. The couple has now been offered a refund, but only after weeks of trying to arrive at a solution.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said: “We believe there may be a serious, industry-wide issue with wedding venues ducking their legal responsibilities on refunds and cancellations by using potentially unfair terms and conditions.

“While many wedding venues may have been financially impacted by the coronavirus crisis, couples who are likely to be devastated at having to cancel their big day should not be forced to bear the cost.

“The CMA is currently investigating this sector and must be ready to take firm action against venues found to be breaching consumer law so customers have some prospect of getting their money back.”

Bijou Group said: “We have been doing everything we can to navigate these very challenging times with as little disruption as possible to our couples and their big days, which we have been working on planning with them for up to two years, incurring significant costs along the way.

“The huge majority are very appreciative and understanding but there is unfortunately a very small minority (around eight or nine) who are not entirely satisfied and have taken to press, social media, review sites, solicitors and so on in an attempt to get what they want. We are considering every case, at length, individually to understand what we can do to help but must also be consistent and fair.

“Without cancellation charges like these, the industry would not be able to offer to consumers what it does at the prices that it does. The cancellation charges protect the venues, and there is wedding insurance to protect the couple.

“We did not cancel any weddings voluntarily – it was imposed on us – and this is exactly the situation for which wedding insurance exists.”

It told Which? Thursday-Sunday postponement dates were one of many options offered to couples.

Tournerbury Woods Estate said: “We have used our best endeavours to try and accommodate each of the couples’ varying needs and requirements to help with postponing their big day, to a day next year when we all hope the Covid 19 crisis will be over.

“Fortunately, we have managed to find a fairly swift and workable solution for the majority of the couples that have had to postpone their weddings.”