Tag: Which?

Support for customers who are struggling to pay their mortgage due to coronavirus

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today announced proposals which will continue support for customers who are struggling to pay their mortgage due to coronavirus (Covid-19).

The proposal outlines the options firms will be required to provide customers coming to an end of a payment holiday, as well as those who are yet to request one.

For customers yet to request a payment holiday, the time to apply for one would be extended until 31 October 2020.

For those who are still experiencing temporary payment difficulties due to coronavirus, firms should continue to offer support, which could include extending a payment holiday by a further three months.

Christopher Woolard, Interim Chief Executive at the FCA, said: “Our expectations are clear – anyone who continues to need help should get help from their lender.

“We expect firms to work with customers on the best options available for them, paying particular attention to the needs of their vulnerable customers, and to provide information on where to access help and advice.

“Where consumers can afford to re-start mortgage payments, it is in their best interests to do so. But where they can’t, a range of further support will be available. People who are struggling and have not had a payment holiday, will continue to be able to apply until 31 October.’

If the proposals are confirmed, the FCA would expect:

  • Customers who can afford to return to full repayment should do so in their best interests – at the end of a payment holiday, firms should contact their customers to find out if they can resume payments and if so, agree a plan on how the missed payments will be repaid.
  • Anyone who continues to need help gets help – lenders should continue to support customers who have already had a payment holiday where they need further help. Firms are expected to engage with their customers and find out what they can re-pay and, for those who remain in temporary financial difficulty, offer further support. As part of this firms should consider a further three-month payment holiday.
  • Extending the time the scheme is available to people who may be impacted at a later date – customers that have not yet had a payment holiday and experiencing financial difficulty will be able to request one until 31 October 2020.
  • Keeping a roof over people’s head during a public health crisis – the current ban on repossessions of homes will be continued to 31 October 2020. This will ensure people are able to comply with the government’s policy to self-isolate if they need to.
  • Payment holidays and partial payment holidays offered under this guidance should not have a negative impact on credit files. However, consumers should remember that credit files aren’t the only source of information which lenders can use to assess creditworthiness.

This guidance would not prevent firms from providing more favourable forms of assistance to the customer, such as reducing or waiving interest.

Firms should consider signposting customers towards sources of debt advice. Debt advice may be helpful for customers coming to the end of payment holidays and may be particularly useful for consumers with pre-existing payment shortfalls or who are likely to be in longer-term financial difficulty.

When implementing this guidance, firms should be particularly aware of the needs of their vulnerable customers and consider how they engage with them. For customers who aren’t able to use online services (such as digital channels), firms should make it easy for customers to access alternatives.

The FCA welcomes comments on these proposals until 5pm on Tuesday 26 May and expects to finalise the guidance shortly afterwards.

This guidance only applies to mortgages. It does not apply to consumer credit products which are covered by separate guidance which will be updated in due course.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The extension of these measures will bring relief to people who would otherwise struggle financially during the challenging months ahead.

“Mortgage lenders should make the process as straightforward as possible, ensuring people can easily access the support they need.

“Consumers should also consider their options carefully as a mortgage payment holiday will likely lead to increased payments in the future – so it is likely to be in their interest to continue making payments as normal if that is feasible.”

Price-gougers selling Covid-19 essentials for up to TEN TIMES the typical price

A Which? investigation has uncovered hundreds of listings for essential products at inflated prices sold via online marketplaces, and has found evidence that thousands of items have been sold at these rip-off rates. 

The first page of search results for some popular brands on online marketplaces such as Amazon Marketplace and eBay were rife with household essentials being sold for at least double the typical supermarket price, as some third-party sellers seek to profiteer amid the coronavirus crisis – and Which? has heard similar reports from consumers who are vulnerable or in desperate need of these in-demand items.

The consumer champion has also uncovered evidence on eBay that thousands of these essential products such as hand sanitiser, cleaning products, toilet roll and tissues are being purchased at these high prices by consumers.

Unknown to the brands, the unscrupulous traders often exploit popular household names such as Andrex, Carex, Dettol and Kleenex in order to profit.

Which? recognises that action is being taken against price-gouging by both Amazon and eBay through blocking and removing large quantities of listings or offers and suspending accounts, but its investigations continue to find large numbers of essential products being listed for sale at inflated prices, suggesting measures from marketplaces alone are not enough and government intervention is needed.

Based on the first page of search results for Carex on Amazon Marketplace, more than half (56%) of Carex products, including hand wash and hand sanitiser, were being sold for five times the typical supermarket price or more and one in 10 (9%) were on sale for 10 times the price.

In fact, 98 per cent of those items on the first page of search results were on offer for double the typical price or more.

For Dettol products listed by Amazon sellers on the first page of search results, which included antibacterial soap, wipes and spray, around six in 10 (63%) of listings were double the price or more.

On the first page of listings for Dettol on eBay, Which? researchers found that not only were nearly nine in 10 (85%) of Dettol items being sold for double the typical supermarket cost, but two in 10 (22%) were five times the typical price, and 8 per cent were 10 times the price.

Eight in 10 (81%) Carex products on the first page of search results  – including hand wash and antibacterial gels – were being sold on eBay for double the typical supermarket cost, while 60 per cent of Andrex and 50 per cent of Kleenex first page listings were double the typical price.

Which?’s new price-gouging reporting tool has also received hundreds of reports of inflated prices so far, six in 10 (58%) of which were about products sold on online marketplaces. Given that Amazon and eBay are by far the most popular online marketplaces in the UK, it’s no surprise that a large proportion of reports are about them.

Consumers are also encouraged to report any issues they see to Amazon and eBay directly.

Of the other 42 per cent, the majority were about supermarkets or large chain stores. One reason Which? set up the tool was due to the difficulty in investigating bricks and mortar cases during lockdown. A third of tool users also reported they are buying products even when they believe them to be at unfair prices.

Which? has heard from housebound vulnerable people who rely on essential items such as cleaning products to protect themselves from Covid-19 – and have reported the sky-high prices they have seen on online marketplaces.

Kathryn Taylor, 59, has a chronic lung condition and has to stay at home due to serious issues with her immune system. She saw a seller on Amazon Marketplace selling 1 litre of Dettol spray for £29.99.

She said: “It’s disgusting. I have had to use these products for years now for hygiene reasons for managing serious health conditions and the current shortages mean

“I have to try to look elsewhere if not available for my Tesco delivery, but I cannot afford to pay the prices.”

On eBay, a 500ml bottle of Dettol surface cleanser, usually sold for £1.75 or less, was listed for more than £9 by one seller. In the reviews, a buyer said that they had been forced to buy it at an ‘exorbitant price’ for their elderly mother who suffers from Parkinson’s disease.

Which? also saw issues on OnBuy, which claims to be one of the world’s fastest growing online marketplaces and was reported to Which? by people trying to find Dettol products.

One person who used Which?’s price gouging reporting tool said that they had found Dettol antibacterial washing machine cleaner on sale for £19.59 via OnBuy, instead of the typical £3.50. Another told Which? that they had been trying to buy Dettol anti-bacterial spray, and had found a bundle of three 750ml bottles on OnBuy for £45.94, rather than the usual £2.50 a bottle.

Which? found multiple examples of products listed by sellers for inflated prices via OnBuy. A bundle of six 750ml Dettol Power and Pure kitchen sprays, usually £3 each, was being sold for more than £40 including postage. A pack of Dettol wipes was for sale for £15.81, more than three times the usual £5.

Which? will be sharing its price-gouging tool data with the CMA, which has set up a special Covid-19 task force to look at issues faced by consumers.

Which? is calling for emergency legislation to give regulators the tools to swiftly crack down on price-gouging on certain essential products during this crisis, and any future ones.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said: “It cannot be right that potentially thousands of people have paid unjustifiably high prices to buy essential items during this Covid-19 crisis.

“While welcome, it’s clear that measures being put in place by online marketplaces are not enough to stop coronavirus profiteering by those seeking to exploit the current situation.

“The government, working with the CMA, needs to step in with emergency legislation to enable swift action to crack down on price-gouging and keep the price of essential items reasonable during crises both now and in the future.”

On Thursday 14 May at 9.30am, Which?’s Sue Davies will be giving evidence to the BEIS Select Committee about the impact of coronavirus on consumers: https://committees.parliament.uk/event/965/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

Link for consumers to submit reports to Which?’s price-gouging tool: https://www.which.co.uk/pricegouging

Vulnerable people risk going hungry without urgent government action, warns Which?

Which? is calling for urgent action from the UK government and the devolved administrations after hearing reports from more than a thousand people, including those who are at very high-risk or vulnerable and unable to access the food and basic supplies they desperately need amid the coronavirus pandemic.

While measures have been introduced by governments and supermarkets that are designed to help high-risk and vulnerable people, more than six weeks into lockdown the consumer champion continues to hear from people who are struggling to book supermarket delivery slots, are unable to find the help they need locally and in some cases find themselves forced to risk their health to get supplies.

Millions of individuals have been identified by the governments around the UK as extremely vulnerable and in the very high-risk group, but Which? is hearing that some are missing out on the provision they need through no fault of their own.

Others who are vulnerable, or have been asked to ‘self-isolate’ because they are elderly, pregnant or suffer from medical conditions that could cause severe illness if they were to contract Covid-19, are even more likely to have fallen through the cracks.

Which? found a range of issues among the huge number of reports received. As well as very high-risk people who are shielding and struggling to get deliveries or being forced to visit stores despite being advised to stay at home, others have been unable to navigate complex, confusing and often overwhelmed government and supermarket helplines or other support systems.

Some of these vulnerable customers told Which? that they are having to stay up into the early hours of the morning in an attempt to book supermarket delivery slots, while others are left relying on the kindness of neighbours.

Gillian Medlar and her husband are both on the very high-risk or extremely vulnerable list as she has Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and he has lymphoma.

They haven’t been able to get a supermarket delivery slot, and described them as “gold dust”. They’ve been forced to rely on a neighbour, but want to limit how much they are asking of her.

The problem also affects carers, who cannot leave the house but are not in the high-risk category themselves so also have to rely on getting delivery slots.

Melvin, whose son is in the highest risk category, has received letters advising him to shield for three months. The whole household is shielding but they have not been recognised as extremely vulnerable by the supermarkets’ websites as the online accounts are in Melvin’s name and not his son’s.

Carers of vulnerable people can go out for groceries but this may not always be possible if they also need to self-isolate themselves.

Geoff Wilson, 86, described feeling like he and the 96-year-old lady he is a full time carer for were “the forgotten ones”. They aren’t eligible to register as extremely vulnerable, and have been unable to get a home delivery from anywhere.

Supermarkets say they have been overwhelmed by demand. While many have gone to great lengths to increase their capacity, without a more coordinated effort from government and better access to other forms of provision in local areas, deliveries will continue to fall short of what’s needed to make sure that every vulnerable person is able to access food and basic supplies without leaving their home.

We have also heard from people who are vulnerable and need help, regardless of their Covid-19 risk. One disabled and housebound individual told Which? she felt she had “completely fallen off the radar for pretty much all of the supposed support measures. Unable to get the delivery slots she relied on, she described being ‘trapped with no deliveries for three of the past four weeks”.

Governments in England, Scotland and Wales have provided the supermarkets with edited lists of those that fall in the extremely vulnerable category and have requested support with getting food. Part of this support is the offer of priority delivery slots by supermarkets.

Supermarkets began by cross-referencing the lists received against existing registered customers and offering priority delivery slots to them. Some supermarkets have also helped people on the government list who aren’t existing customers .

However, Which? has also heard from extremely vulnerable people who despite receiving a letter from the government letting them know that they qualify for priority supermarket delivery slots, have then been left in the dark for weeks on end about what they need to do.

There have been issues identifying the most vulnerable people and in some cases they have to identify themselves but there has been a lack of clarity and no central point of contact in order to find the best solution for each individual or area – which may not always be supermarket delivery but instead community based solutions from either smaller independent shops or volunteers.

Amanda Kontzle told Which? that her father is over 70 and having stem cell cancer treatment. He has been contacted by the government to reassure him that he is on the list of very high-risk people, but has been unable to get a delivery slot with any supermarket despite registering as a customer.

Amanda said: “I’m absolutely disgusted at how he has been treated during this crisis so far.”

Which? believes that the UK’s four governments must step up efforts to ensure that no one who is vulnerable has fallen through the cracks and is struggling to access basic supplies.

Better coordination between governments, local authorities, the food industry and local charities is also urgently needed for those who are vulnerable but not in the highest risk group, so that they understand how to easily access the support they need, whether that is through their local supermarket or community based provision.

Many of the people who have contacted Which? say they feel have been let down by the supermarkets because they are unable to get delivery slots – but there are limits to supermarkets’ ability to address some of the issues experienced by vulnerable consumers without additional government support.

The governments across the UK must now urgently coordinate their approach to make sure that no vulnerable person has to navigate confusing, long-winded and complicated systems in order to access food during the pandemic lockdown.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy at Which?, said: “Based on the huge number of reports we’re seeing from vulnerable people struggling to get access to basic food and supplies, it’s clear that the current system is not working for those who need it the most.

“Without easily accessible and clearer information for these people, and stronger coordination between the UK’s central and devolved governments, the food industry, local authorities and local charities, there is a risk that many will go hungry during this pandemic.”

Which? reports holiday letting companies to regulator

Which? has reported some of Britain’s biggest holiday lettings companies to the competition regulator after an investigation by the consumer champion raised concerns that they could be using unfair contract terms to deny customers refunds for coronavirus cancellations.

Frustrated customers of companies including Sykes Holiday Cottages and Hoseasons have complained to Which? about problems in securing a refund for holidays cancelled as a result of the UK lockdown.

Some have complained about terms and conditions that make the refund claims process difficult, if not impossible. Others describe being unable to contact the company they booked through or being passed between the company and property owner as neither accepts responsibility.

Which? checked the terms and conditions of five of the UK’s biggest holiday letting companies – Sykes Holiday Cottages, Holidaycottages.co.uk, Hoseasons, Cottages.com and English Country Cottages – to understand consumers’ entitlement to a refund for cancellations under these circumstances, and found terms that could potentially be challenged as unfair under the Consumer Rights Act.

In four of the five companies’ contracts, the terms set out how owners of properties rented through the sites are allowed to cancel the holiday if circumstances outside of their control prevent them from being able to provide the property, but do not explain what the consumer’s right to a refund would be in these circumstances.

Which? is concerned that if the right to a refund isn’t provided by additional terms between the property owner and the customer this term gives property owners too much leeway to keep a customer’s money if a booking is cancelled – making it potentially unfair according to the law. The Holidaycottages.co.uk contract was the only one to not contain this potentially unfair cancellation clause.

Hoseasons, Cottages.com and English Country Cottages also tell customers that bookings are subject to the additional terms and conditions of the property owner and that these are “available from the suppliers if you ask”.

While the booking terms say other information may be provided to the consumer during the booking process, if this doesn’t include these additional terms and they are only available on request, Which? believes this could also potentially be challenged as legally unfair.

Jessica Tappin has been waiting for over a month for a full refund from Sykes Holiday Cottages, after receiving a partial refund and being told the remaining balance would be credited to her account.

When she still had not received the outstanding sum and heard of other customers getting full refunds, she tried sending a letter from a solicitor – but she told  Which? that she has still not received the remaining payment.

Adam Kemp is also waiting for a refund from Hoseasons, who told him he cannot claim a refund without cancellation insurance, despite not cancelling the holiday himself. The company sent him a voucher for the value of the holiday instead.

Adam told Which? that Hoseasons pointed him to its terms and conditions about compensation in the event of circumstances beyond its control, which state that the company doesn’t cover additional losses. But Hoseasons did not point to any terms around refunds for cancellations made by the owner of the property.

Which? has reported its findings with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which this week launched an investigation into unfair terms and bad practice in the UK holiday lettings sector.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “With the coronavirus outbreak wreaking havoc on holiday plans, it’s extremely concerning to hear of so many people being refused refunds from some of the UK’s biggest players in the holiday lettings market.

“The CMA must investigate, and where terms are unfair, take action to ensure that companies act fairly so that holidaymakers are not left out of pocket for their cancelled holidays.”

Fraudsters ‘running riot’ on social media, says Which?

Social media websites are fuelling the fire of the UK’s fraud crisis by failing to clamp down on scammers selling people’s personal details through their platforms, a new Which? Money investigation reveals.

The consumer champion discovered 50 scam profiles, pages and groups across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram with clear evidence of blatant criminal activity.

This included advertising stolen identities, credit card details, compromised Netflix and Uber Eats accounts and even fake passports made to order. All were found easily by searching simple, barely disguised slang terms for fraud.

With fraud cases rising by a fifth in the last year and losses to coronavirus-related scams already reaching £2 million, Which? is concerned that the results of its investigation – carried out before the outbreak took hold in the UK – highlight how lax measures to prevent the trade of personal and financial information on these platforms could be exploited by criminals looking to take advantage of the crisis.

Tthe investigation uncovered an alarming post on one illicit Facebook group, detailing the full identity of a man in Yorkshire. His full name, date of birth, address and mobile number were all listed alongside complete financial information including his credit card number, CVV number and expiry date, sort code and the name of his bank.

The post had already been up for four months when it was spotted by Which?, and the details were even being given away for free, potentially as a tactic designed to prove the seller’s credentials for future deals.

Using the open electoral roll, a researcher was able to establish that the victim had lived at the address listed in the Facebook post at least as recently as 2018, along with individuals whose names and ages implied they were his wife and adult children – demonstrating how easy it would be for a scammer to exploit the details available in the Facebook post.

Meanwhile, one fraudster on Twitter offered full credit card details of someone with a ‘£13k+ balance’ for £100, or three sets of card details for £200. Another offered a phoney passport for £3,000, which could have potentially been used as proof of ID to open bank accounts and credit cards.

Twitter’s algorithm also made it all too easy to find criminal ID sellers. After searching for and viewing such accounts, the site suggested following ones offering similar services through its “who to follow” section.

In addition, Which? found Instagram users sharing price lists detailing how much it would cost to acquire full identities, as well as ‘fraud bibles’. These comprehensive how-to guides for novice hackers and scammers explain how to create fake identities and use stolen card details.

All 50 of the groups, pages and profiles were reported to their respective social media platforms via their in-site reporting tools.

Shockingly, Facebook initially refused to remove the post containing the clearly stolen details of the Yorkshire man, on the basis that it ‘doesn’t go against one of our specific community standards’.

When Which? requested a review of the decision through the reporting tool, the post was removed, but the hacker group it was posted on remained up.

While Facebook also removed a few other isolated posts that Which? reported, when a researcher checked six days later, it had allowed every page and group to remain. Instagram and Twitter had not removed any content at all.

It was only when the content was presented to the platforms’ media representatives that it was ultimately all taken down.

Which? believes it is unacceptable for social media platforms to take such a lackadaisical attitude to the fraudulent activity taking place on their sites.

With proposed regulation of illegal and harmful content on social media platforms – such as the criminal activity exposed in this investigation – a long way from being introduced, the consumer champion is calling for the sites to take much more responsibility and be proactive in removing such content and blocking criminals.

Jenny Ross, Which? Money Editor, said: “It’s astonishing that social media sites make it so easy for criminals to trade people’s personal and financial information, particularly as fraud is such a prevalent crime that can have devastating consequences.

“Social media firms must take much stronger action to prevent their sites becoming a safe haven for scammers, and should work with the financial industry and police to address serious flaws with their platforms.

Facebook, which also owns Instagram, said: “Fraudulent activity is not tolerated on our platforms, and we have removed the groups and profiles flagged to us by Which? Money for violating our policies.

“We continue to invest in people and technology to identify and remove fraudulent content, and we urge people to report any suspicious content to us so we can take action.”

Twitter said: “It is against our rules to use scam tactics on Twitter to obtain money or private financial information.

“Where we identify violations of our rules, we take robust enforcement action. We’re constantly adapting to bad actors’ evolving methods, and will continue to iterate and improve upon our policies as the industry evolves.”

 

Which? launches tool to tackle profiteers

Which? has developed a simple tool for people to report coronavirus profiteering amid concerns that price-gougers are getting away with hiking the prices of essential items.

The consumer champion has uncovered widespread problems with basic products being sold for hugely inflated prices on online marketplaces such as Amazon Marketplace and eBay – and there are concerns that similar behaviour could be happening on other sites and in shops up and down the country.

These practices may have left key workers and charities struggling to get essential products they need or forced to pay extortionate prices.

Which? spoke to a charity that helps provide hundreds of meals to elderly and vulnerable people – demand for this vital service has gone up since the Covid-19 crisis. However the price of essential items to keep its employees and vulnerable clients safe, such as antibacterial probe wipes, which the charity has only been able to buy in the high quantities they need from eBay, has more than doubled since the crisis.

The Competition and Markets Authority has set up a dedicated Covid-19 taskforce, and reports shared using the tool will help the regulator to establish the scale of the problem and take action against the worst offenders. Which? is also calling for emergency legislation to give regulators the tools to swiftly crack down on price-gouging on certain essential products during this crisis, and any future ones.

The CMA and Chartered Trading Standards Institute have both raised serious concerns about problems with price-gouging and the Prime Minister has also warned traders against “exploiting people’s need” during a national emergency.

Which? has heard reports from hundreds of consumers that unscrupulous sellers have been taking advantage of the situation and its investigations have uncovered huge price hikes on products such as handwash, cleaning products and baby formula.

Which? experts have found Dettol bleach and cleaning sprays being sold by third-party sellers with price hikes of almost 1000 per cent more than the typical price on eBay with evidence of dozens of purchases being made at these prices.

Researchers also encountered sterilising fluid for baby bottles for more than 10 times the original price by a seller on Amazon and a bundle of one handwash and one antibacterial gel for £30 on eBay, instead of the £3.50 it would usually cost.

Some shoppers have felt pressured into buying these overpriced products because of a lack of alternative options available, including older and more vulnerable people who need access to vital hygiene products such as hand sanitiser.

One told Which?: “I’m disabled and struggle to leave my home, but the current crisis is forcing me to go out and struggle to get essentials when I normally get as much online as I can.

“My trust in buying from online marketplaces has been shattered, some items are fine if I find it at a reasonable price, but others I can’t trust as they’re either gouged, possibly diluted and therefore useless, or it’s a scam listing and the item never existed to begin with.”

Another said: “I paid £19.80 plus £5.25 for post and packaging for 2 x 250ml of hand sanitiser from a seller on eBay. Outrageous price but we are a captive audience and it was the cheapest I could find. Someone is getting very rich from this pandemic.”

Which? has also heard numerous reports of price-gouging at bricks and mortar retailers including pharmacies.

Which? is calling for the government to introduce specific legislation to stop unjustifiable price hikes of essential items during times of emergency, as well as requiring online marketplaces to ensure compliance on their sites or face enforcement action.

New legislation would also give the UK a head start in tackling price-gouging during any future emergencies. The absence of legislation has made it harder to take action on this issue swiftly and left the UK trailing behind other countries that already have laws to combat price-gouging during crises.

In the meantime, Which? believes online marketplaces need to bring in stricter, more effective controls and policies to tackle price gouging, and is encouraging the CMA to take strong enforcement action using its existing powers where appropriate.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said: “It is unacceptable for people to be left at the mercy of unscrupulous sellers during a national emergency. We’re calling for people to report opportunistic coronavirus profiteers via our tool so that we can press home the need for swift action and put an end to price-gouging on basic goods.

“The government, working with the CMA, needs to step in with emergency legislation to crack down on price-gouging and keep the price of essential items reasonable during a crisis.”

Link for consumers to submit reports to Which?’s price-gouging tool: https://www.which.co.uk/pricegouging

Banks urged to clear up confusion over refunds for coronavirus cancellations

The banking industry is taking an inconsistent and confusing approach when dealing with refund claims for customers who have reached a stalemate with a business over refunds for coronavirus cancellations, new Which? research has revealed.

With huge numbers of consumers deeply dissatisfied with travel companies and other businesses asking them to accept credit notes or rebooking instead of offering refunds, Which? has heard reports from frustrated bank customers who have had claims turned down.

This includes one customer who was denied a refund of a £2,200 payment split between Halifax and Metro Bank cards for a cancelled ski trip and another left £750 out of pocket after RBS rejected her claim. In both cases the customers were told a refund was not possible because they were being offered credit notes or vouchers.

The cases prompted the consumer champion to investigate how banks are handling claims under two forms of consumer protection.

The first of these protections is chargeback, which covers all card payments. While not a direct consumer right, it is a process provided under card schemes which reverses a transaction if a customer is not able to resolve a dispute with a business for a variety of reasons.

The second is Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a legal protection for credit card users on purchases of more than £100 and less than £30,000, which gives the customer a claim against the card issuer as well as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied.

Despite guidance issued by Mastercard and Visa stating that customers are able to pursue the chargeback route if they are offered a voucher or the option to rebook, when Which? asked banks to confirm if they would attempt to process refunds, MANY STATED THAT CLAIMS WOULD NEED TO BE HANDLED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. The same applied to Section 75.

Which? is concerned that a failure to provide even general information about the circumstances where a claim could be successful risks leaving consumers unaware of vital consumer protections that could help them get their money back at a time when people’s finances are significantly stretched.

However, some banks did provide clearer information about the prospects of consumers getting their money back. In relation to chargebacks, Virgin Money (Mastercard) made it clear that if the alternative arrangements are not covered in the terms and conditions, they would normally expect a chargeback to be successful.

Starling Bank (Mastercard) and Lloyds Banking Group (Mastercard and Visa) said that they will initiate a chargeback where the offer of vouchers or free rebooking is not deemed suitable by the customer.

But Which? has also heard from a Halifax customer who was turned down for a chargeback request for a cancelled holiday based on these circumstances, despite the bank being part of Lloyds Banking Group – raising fears that the rules are not being applied evenly.

The number of people using the free Which? chargeback and Section 75 tool has shot up to 10,000 in March and April so far, compared to 1,000 in January and February of this year.

This highlights how many people are getting nowhere with businesses on refunds, often in cases where a significant amount of money is on the line. Amid confusion over the protections the banks offer in these circumstances, Which? is calling for the industry to be more upfront about the situations where chargeback and Section 75 are likely to be appropriate for consumers in relation to coronavirus-related cancellations. It believes banks should follow the lead of those in the industry who have committed to providing customers with the best prospect of getting their money back.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “While it is a very difficult time for businesses, the coronavirus outbreak has also put people’s finances under considerable pressure, and they deserve to get their money back if they want a refund for a cancelled event or trip, rather than a voucher or the option to rebook.

“However, there is clearly confusion about the circumstances which allow banks to help their customers achieve this. There needs to be greater clarity and consistency about claiming through banks, and the industry should ensure that all bank customers have a fair chance of getting their money back.”

Which? launches new scam alert service

Which? is launching a free scam alert service to warn consumers about the latest fraud attempts and give advice about how they can protect themselves, as criminals exploit the coronavirus outbreak to unleash a new range of scams.

With more than £1.2 billion lost to scammers in 2019, fraud has become one of the most prevalent crimes in the UK, which often results in devastating consequences for victims.

In recent weeks, scammers have rushed to exploit the widespread fear and confusion caused by the pandemic.

Which? has heard many reports of different types of coronavirus-related scams including:

  • Bogus phishing texts from HMRC claiming the taxman has been forced to issue refunds due to coronavirus, and providing a link for readers to “calculate their refund”.
  • Fake messages purporting to be from the government, requesting people pay a fine for breaching the coronavirus lockdown rules.
  • Emails encouraging people to use their time during the coronavirus lockdown to invest in bitcoin.
  • Unsolicited calls from fraudsters offering to enrol vulnerable people onto coronavirus vaccine trials for a fee.

To help consumers separate the scams from legitimate communications being sent by firms, government and organisations about coronavirus, Which? is launching a free scam alert service.

Available to everyone, those signing up will receive warnings about the latest scams as the consumer champion uncovers them, along with information about how to spot a scam and protect themselves against falling victim to fraudsters.

Around £2 million has already been lost to coronavirus-related scams in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, according to Action Fraud figures, while the National Cyber Security Centre has detected 2,500 government-branded scams since the start of March.

Earlier this week, GCHQ urged the public to be more vigilant than ever for online fraud attempts as families face an “unprecedented threat from cyber criminals”.

Google has said scammers are sending 18 million hoax emails about Covid-19 every day, while security experts say they have discovered more than 700 fake websites mimicking Netflix and Disney+ signup pages as criminals try to take advantage of the lockdown to harvest people’s bank details.

Financial bodies including the Pensions Regulator, Financial Conduct Authority and Money and Pensions Service also issued a joint statement urging savers not to make rash pension decisions, over fears that scammers will try to exploit people’s concerns about the impact of the outbreak on their finances.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “The coronavirus outbreak has created the perfect storm for scams, with fraudsters using callous tactics to exploit people’s fears and vulnerability for their own financial gain.

“As new scams spring up daily, our alert service aims to help people protect themselves and their loved ones.

“Everyone should be extra cautious about clicking on links in any unsolicited emails and texts or answering calls. Make sure your computers, mobile phones and tablets are supported by the latest security updates, and consider installing antivirus software to minimise threats.”

The free service from Which? is available at: which.co.uk/scam-alerts

Which? calls for price controls to stop coronavirus profiteering

Which? is calling for urgent government action that would limit the prices of essential products during the coronavirus crisis, after a new investigation found Amazon and eBay are still failing to get to grips with blatant ‘price-gouging’ on their websites.  

More than a month after the competition regulator raised the alarm, and despite a warning from the Prime Minister, the consumer champion’s experts were able to easily find widespread evidence of sellers hawking household items for rip-off prices.

When Which? asked its members if they’d witnessed coronavirus profiteering, they provided a further dossier of hundreds of cases on Amazon Marketplace, eBay and other retailers within 48 hours.

Despite both Amazon and eBay removing hundreds of thousands of rogue listings, their actions to block listings are failing to prevent some unscrupulous sellers posting items in the first place, which means products including handwash, cleaning products and baby formula are still being sold for extortionate prices.

A simple search for Carex on eBay that took seconds revealed over 350 listings with a ‘buy it now’ price and over 240 active auctions running.The listings included two 600ml bottles of Carex handwash with a “buy it now” price of £40, and a multi-pack of six 250ml bottles of handwash, clearly labelled as £1 each, which had reached £31 in an auction, but still not reached the seller’s reserve price.

On Amazon, six bottles of Carex were listed for £39.95. One reviewer noted that they had been ripped off after paying £24.99 for a pack that arrived with £1 stamped on each bottle.

A bottle of Dettol all-purpose cleaner was £59.99 including postage and packaging on eBay,  24 times the normal price. On Amazon, a similar bottle of Dettol multi-purpose cleaner, which usually costs £2.79, was £19.31, including an £11.24 shipping charge.

Sellers had no qualms about exploiting families with young children either. On eBay, two packs of Aptamil First Infant Milk had a “buy it now” price of £37.17, more than double the usual price. An Amazon seller wanted £99.99 for a pack of four Aptamil Profutura Stage 3 milk powder, nearly the double the price at other retailers.

Some eBay sellers even included photos of listed products, including toilet rolls and Dettol surface cleaner, piled high in trollies or in their homes – suggesting they had little concern about facing scrutiny.

Researchers also saw a worrying trend on Amazon, where they found listings for products including Carex handwash and baby formula that had been removed as a result of Which?’s previous investigation 16-19 March now had new sellers using exactly the same URLs and offering the same products at sky-high prices.

Of the 11 listings previously removed by Amazon, Which?’s researchers found that five seemed to have reappeared with new and inflated prices when they checked again on 3 April.

The consumer champion’s latest investigation reinforces the need for the government to step in with emergency legislation to cap prices for essential products so that unscrupulous sellers are clearly prohibited from taking advantage of consumers and online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay can effectively clamp down on sales of these products at inflated prices.

The CMA, and its Covid-19 taskforce, should advise the government on the most appropriate legislation to cap prices and give the competition regulator the tools it needs to address price gouging for the duration of the crisis.

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said: “Amazon and eBay seem unable to stop coronavirus profiteering – leaving some unscrupulous sellers to have a field day exploiting people by selling essential items at appallingly high prices.

“It is time for the government, working with the CMA, to step in with strong action to stamp out price-gouging and keep the price of vital goods reasonable during this difficult time.”

Amazon responded: “There is no place for price gouging on Amazon.

“We are disappointed that bad actors are attempting to artificially raise prices on basic need products during a global health crisis and, in line with our long-standing policy, have recently blocked or removed hundreds of thousands of offers. We continue to actively monitor our store and remove offers that violate our policies.”

An eBay spokesperson said: “We have extremely effective measures in place to combat price gouging – something that we’ve communicated to Which? multiple times – with heavy restrictions on the listing of some in-demand products at unreasonable prices, resulting in five million price automatically blocked attempts to price gouge, an additional 600,000 removed, and thousands of seller accounts suspended.”

Case studies 

Case study 1

In February I purchased four 500ml bottles of Hibiscrub from eBay for £21.28. I buy this every few months for my mum’s hands as she gets infections and blisters. The same seller is now selling the exact same pack for £89.99. Absolute disgrace! Lots of the eBay sellers are doing the same so I’m praying I don’t run out as I can’t afford these prices.

Case study 2

Trying to get a Braun thermometer due to underlying health problems, were £39.99 in Argos and John Lewis now out of stock but I can buy at inflated prices on Amazon and EBay,for anything up to £199!!! I don’t think so, profiteering at its worst.

Case study 3

I went on eBay to get my usual deodorants, as I’m 74 and can’t get to the supermarket for a delivery slot. FemFresh deodorant that usually costs around £3 was on eBay for £9. It’s a black market disgrace – now we know who’s been clearing the shelves for their own greedy gain. Where’s the law to stop this?

Case study 4

We are delivering food to elderly and vulnerable people in Suffolk, probe wipes that we bought before are now £50 more expensive than before Covid !!!

Post Office helps self-isolating people to access cash

The Post Office is making two of its products available to all UK banks, building societies and credit unions, to make it easier for people who are self-isolating to access cash.

The products are Payout Now – a voucher sent by text, email or post to a customer who can share it with a trusted person to withdraw cash; and Fast Pace – a service allowing a customer to arrange for a trusted person to collect a cheque from them, cash it at Post Office and return with the money.

Martin Kearsley, banking director at the Post Office, said: “Being able to easily access cash is a vital service for older people and those self-isolating.

“Our Payout Now and Fast Pace services mean they can access cash quickly and securely to repay someone for a helpful service like shopping, or simply manage their finances, providing peace of mind that cash can be securely sourced with the help of any trusted helper.”

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “Millions of people rely on cash every day but many will struggle to access their money during the coronavirus crisis.

“Our research has found a third of people, including those aged 65 and over and vulnerable consumers, have concerns about managing their money digitally, so this initiative will ensure those who rely on cash will not be cut off during this difficult time.

“Initiatives like this also highlight how close to collapse the UK’s cash network is and further drives home the need for swift action to guarantee access to cash over the long-term.”

The Post Office has a UK network of more than 11,500 branches.