Tag: Which?

Nine in 10 Black Friday ‘deals’ same price or cheaper ahead of the event, Which? reveals

Nine in 10 (92%) Black Friday ‘deals’ are the same price or cheaper in the six months ahead of the big event, a Which? investigation has found.

The consumer champion analysed 201 of last year’s Black Friday deals at six major retailers – Amazon, AO, Argos, Currys, John Lewis and Richer Sounds – looking at their prices every day during the six months before and after Black Friday as well as on the day itself.

A huge 184 of the products, which included popular items such as washing machines, soundbars and TVs, were the same price or cheaper in the six months prior to Black Friday. Only 17 of the deals did not fall into this category.

With Black Friday just days away, Which? is advising shoppers to do some research to help them hunt down the minority of deals that really are a bargain and emerge from the mammoth sales event with high-quality products at a reasonable price.

Consumers could have had a challenge finding a decent deal at Currys last year, given every one of the 32 products Which?’s experts looked at from the retailer’s Black Friday sales had been an equal price or cheaper in the previous six months.

One of the worst individual deals Which? came across was a Zanussi ZWF81441W washing machine at John Lewis that was cheaper than its Black Friday price on 88 different days before the day itself.

‘Discounted’ to £309 on Black Friday, customers could have bought it £60 cheaper at £249 five months before and for £289 within just a month after.

Another dubious ‘deal’ was a Bush BRC100DHEB 100cm Dual Fuel Range Cooker sold at Argos for £449.99 (was £499.99) but it was actually the same price 66 times before and 19 times after Black Friday.

Out of the retailers analysed, Richer Sounds had the highest proportion of deals, four out of 14, that were not cheaper or the same price before Black Friday – still not hugely impressive.

When looking at prices six months before and after Black Friday 2020, just one of the 201 products was at its cheapest price on Black Friday alone.

Many shoppers do not do any research before they splash their cash on Black Friday, which leaves them at greater risk of falling for dud deals. Which? survey research shows four in 10 (39%) of those buying baby and child products last year did little or no research on price, while for home appliances this was the case for three in 10 (28%) and for tech products it was one in five (18%).

Which?’s survey also found that a lot of shoppers had not read reviews of products before buying them. A third (33%) of those buying baby and child products last Black Friday did little or no research on reviews of the products before buying. For those buying home appliances a quarter (26%) were in this position and for tech products it was one in five (22%).

Which?’s pricing investigation also found that, when looking at the six months after Black Friday, almost all (98.5%) of the products across the six retailers were cheaper or the same price at some point during this period – suggesting that in some cases shoppers may be better off biding their time and waiting for the price of a product to fall further.

Which? believes retailers should always make sure the discounts they quote are truly genuine.

Consumers are advised not to feel pressured to rush into making a purchase. They should look to get Black Friday bargains that are the real deal this winter and choose products that are high-quality and built to last.

Ele Clark, Which? Retail Editor, said: “Our latest investigation has shown that the vast majority of Black Friday deals are not as good as they appear to be, which is why it’s so important to do your research before diving into the sales.

“Take time to identify the products you really want and check that the ‘deal’ you’re seeing represents a genuine saving. That way, you can beat the hype and be confident that you’ll emerge from the Black Friday sales with quality products that will last for years to come – and all for a bargain price.”

Black Friday advice

Black Friday shoppers rush into purchases they later regret, Which? research reveals

The hype around Black Friday leads some shoppers to make impulse buys they later regret – with many using credit or borrowing from friends and family to fund their purchases, Which? has found. 

Which? surveyed 2,000 members of the public to find out how they felt about items they bought in last year’s Black Friday sales and found that the majority who bought something in the 2020 sales regretted their purchases across five of the seven product categories featured.

Three-quarters (76%) of people who bought DIY products in the Black Friday sales later regretted these purchases.

Two-thirds (66%) of people who bought home appliances, nearly two-thirds (64%) who bought baby and child products, six in ten (58%) who bought health and beauty products and more than half (53%) who bought homeware or furniture also said they regretted their purchases.

The other two categories – clothing, shoes and accessories, and tech products – saw half (49%) and four in ten (41%) of shoppers feel regrets, respectively.

Three in ten shoppers (28%) who bought DIY products had to use credit or borrow from friends or family to pay for their goods, because they did not have the funds themselves.

Borrowing because they had no other way to pay was also common among customers who bought baby and child (24%), homeware or furniture (20%) and health and beauty products (20%).

The hype surrounding Black Friday can lead people to make rash decisions, sometimes skipping steps they would usually take before buying, such as shopping around and checking product reviews.

One in five people (20%) who bought home appliances felt pressured to rush into a purchase. These figures were even higher for people who bought DIY products, with 22 per cent feeling pressured.

To guard against any rash purchases, Which? advises consumers to do some research ahead of Black Friday, keeping an eye on prices for any potentially significant purchases before this year’s deals are announced so they have something to compare them to.

Previous Which? research has found that Black Friday deals are cheaper at other times of the year. The consumer champion’s Black Friday deals guide identifies the deals that offer the best discounts and is a helpful resource for shoppers to check during the sales.

If something catches their eye on the day, consumers can also use price tracker websites to help establish if they are getting the best price and check Which? reviews to see if a product is a Best Buy.

Ele Clark, Which? Retail Editor, said: “Our research has found that many people regret Black Friday purchases, as the hype around the sales pushes them to make rash decisions.

“More worryingly, some told us they had to borrow or use credit in order to fund their purchases, which could impact their credit score if they can’t clear the debt.

“Don’t feel rushed into making an impulse purchase. Thinking about what you genuinely want or need to buy in advance of Black Friday, checking product reviews and researching the item’s price history will help ensure you stay within budget and get the best value for money in the sales.”

Safe as houses: Which? annual mortgage survey reveals best and worst mortgage lenders

First Direct and Nationwide have come out on top in Which?’s annual mortgage lender survey, with both named Which? Recommended Providers (WRPs) for offering a combination of excellent customer service and consistently competitive rates. 

With speculation that interest rate rises could be on the way, it is more important than ever that prospective homeowners and remortgagers do their research and find the right deal and provider. 

The consumer champion surveyed more than 3,500 homeowners and analysed thousands of mortgage deals to find which providers offered impressive customer service and the best rates. 

Lenders were scored on multiple aspects of customer service, including: keeping customers informed, clarity of mortgage statements, transparency of charges or penalties, dealing with queries and complaints, flexibility of payments, online access and value for money. 

First Direct came out on top, receiving an impressive customer score of 81 per cent. Its customers gave it five stars across the board, and the lender consistently offered some of the cheapest deals on the market. 

Nationwide earned an overall customer score of 77 per cent and was also named a WRP for the eighth year in a row. The building society achieved five-star ratings for value for money and clarity of its mortgage statements.

Coventry Building Society received the joint-top score of 81 per cent, achieving five stars for customer service, clarity of mortgage statements and keeping you well informed, among others. However, it missed out on becoming a WRP because it did not offer enough market-leading deals. 

Royal Bank of Scotland received the lowest score in this year’s survey, with an overall customer score of 64 per cent. RBS received three stars for its general customer service, flexibility of payments and online access, among other criteria. 

While nearly nine in 10 (87%) respondents told the consumer champion that they were satisfied with their mortgage provider, a quarter (24%) said they had had a problem with their lender. The most commonly cited issues included poor customer service, a lack of flexibility on payments and poor interest rates. 

When asked why they chose a lender, around one in five (21%) respondents said the size of monthly repayments was important, while the same number said the overall cost of the deal was key. One in six (16%) respondents said an existing relationship with the lender (for example, having a bank account with the provider) was a key factor. 

Seven in 10 (72%) of survey respondents had a capital remortgage payment plan. However one fifth (20%) had interest-only mortgages. While the majority of respondents with interest-only mortgages had a plan for repayment at the end of the term, worryingly 9 per cent said they did not know how they would repay their loan – meaning they could be forced to sell their home at the end of the term to repay the balance.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Which? Money, said: “Buying a house is the most expensive purchase most of us will make in our lifetime, so finding a mortgage deal that’s right for you is essential – especially when the outlook for interest rates in the year ahead is uncertain. 

“Recently, we’ve seen reputable lenders offering record-breaking low rates, meaning it’s possible to find a deal that combines value for money with great customer service. As ever, doing a bit of research and talking to a whole-of-market broker before committing is likely to pay off.”

Consumers divided over electric vehicle revolution, Which? reveals

Older consumers, those on low incomes and rural households will need more support to switch to electric vehicles due to concerns about affordability, range and the UK’s charging infrastructure, new Which? research has found.

Electric car ownership has soared in the last few years and, with the government’s ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol vehicles looming, motorists are being encouraged to consider switching. However, Which? found there are stark contrasts between different groups of consumers and how they view the transition to electric vehicles.

The mass adoption of electric vehicles is a critical aspect of the government’s net-zero strategy and will benefit consumers who want to lead more sustainable lives, while also potentially reducing their motoring costs.

A new Which? survey found that while two in five people (44%) are comfortable switching to electric vehicles, almost half (49%) are not. The consumer champion found seven in 10 (71%) 18-24-year-olds are comfortable switching to electric vehicles and around half (56%) of those aged between 18 and 39 said they intended to buy one in the future.

However, only a quarter of those aged 65 and above are comfortable switching (26%) or intend to buy an electric vehicle (23%). More than half (52%) of respondents aged 65 and above do not intend to buy an electric vehicle in the future.

Urban dwellers are also more comfortable transitioning to electric vehicles than rural residents, with almost half (47%) of those living in urban areas open to switching and two-fifths (42%) planning to buy one. However, only a third of those living in rural areas felt comfortable switching (34%) or intend to buy an electric vehicle (36%).

Electric cars are currently more expensive to buy compared to petrol or diesel vehicles – a possible contributing factor to lower enthusiasm levels for switching among lower-income households.

The consumer champion found just a third of households (32%) on lower incomes (£21,000 and below) intend to make their next car an electric vehicle and two-fifths (41%) said they have no intention of buying one. This compares to more than half (57%) in more affluent households (more than £48,000) saying they would buy an electric car in the future and only a fifth (21%) saying they had no intention of buying one.

While the upfront cost of an electric car is one reason many people are reluctant to switch, the most common is related to perceptions about inferior performance. Two in five (44%) said concerns about battery range put them off switching to an electric vehicle, while a third (34%) cited the upfront cost.

The UK’s charging infrastructure is also a concern for motorists, with a third (33%) stating they are put off buying an electric car as they are worried about accessing charge points away from home or on long journeys.

In a market study published earlier this year, the Competition and Markets Authority suggested there needs to be a tenfold increase in the number of charge points across the UK by 2030 and that more needs to be done to address the “postcode lottery” of finding a charge point.

The UK government and Ofgem, the energy regulator, have pledged to invest millions of pounds to expand Britain’s public charging network. While Which? supports this move, it also believes the current infrastructure is difficult to navigate, disjointed and must be overhauled to ensure motorists have easy and convenient access to the charge points they need, wherever they live in the UK.

Sue Davies, Which? Head of Consumer Rights and Food Policy, said: “The mass adoption of electric vehicles is a key element of the government’s net-zero strategy, but while some consumers are ready to switch, our research shows older consumers and those from lower-income or rural households are less inclined to embrace the electric car revolution.

“It is vital that action is taken to address significant barriers including concerns about battery range, cost and the UK’s charging infrastructure that could deter motorists from switching to electric vehicles. Consumers also need more support to ensure they can make the decision to buy an electric car.”

Safety Alert: Dangerous toys widely available on online marketplaces, Which? warns

Parents are being warned about the risk of buying cheap, unbranded toys online after a new Which? investigation found more than 40 per cent of toys it bought from online marketplaces failed safety tests.

The consumer champion tested 28 toys bought from four popular online marketplaces – Amazon Marketplace, AliExpress, eBay and Wish – and found 12 posed a safety risk after failing one or more tests.

Each product was tested against British safety standards and checked for small objects that could pose a choking risk, sharp edges and points, cords or fabrics that could pose a strangulation risk and magnets and batteries that could be easily accessed as well as warning notices.

In total, Which? found 50 safety failures among the 12 toys that failed tests, with 10 toys presenting a choking risk and two posing a strangulation risk for children.

While 16 of the 28 toys Which? tested passed safety tests, five of the products that failed tests were sold on Wish, making it the worst offender. Three were sold on eBay and AliExpress respectively and only one was available on Amazon Marketplace.

The most dangerous product Which? found was a 51-piece doctor’s playset – described as a toy for a baby or toddler – sold on Wish, which was filled with unsafe toys and had at least 20 choking hazards.

Most of the toys in the set broke into small and dangerous parts far too easily, including play scissors and a notepad which revealed sharp points.

It also contained toy plasters and pills which were far too small for young children to play with safely and presented a choking risk.

A similar doctor’s set sold on AliExpress was also filled with dangerous toys and failed tests. Which? identified 10 potential choking hazards and also found the long cord on the doctor’s coat could present a strangulation hazard.

A set of magnetic building blocks aimed at children aged three years old and above and sold on Amazon Marketplace also failed safety tests. It did not withstand the impact test and broke open to reveal tiny magnets that were almost four times as powerful as they were permitted to be under current standards, which could pose a choking risk.

Magnets can also cause serious harm to children if swallowed, as they could attract each other in the gut and create blockages, compression of the gut and perforation which would need surgery to fix.

Which? also found a toy tablet sold on Wish that posed a serious risk as the battery cover could be easily removed to reveal a button battery. Similar to magnets, button batteries can be a choking hazard and cause serious injuries or chemical burns if swallowed.

In recent years, organisations such as the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) have issued warnings about button batteries after fatal incidents involving children swallowing them. It is recommended that children’s toys have a secure battery cover that needs a screwdriver or two simultaneous movements to remove.

Which? shared its investigation with the four online marketplaces and all 12 products that failed have since been removed from sale.

Unlike UK retailers, online marketplaces have limited responsibility for ensuring the products sold on their platform meet legal safety requirements, repeatedly allowing unsafe toys and products to make it onto their sites.

The UK’s product safety regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, is currently reviewing the product safety system, including regulation of online sales.

Which? believes that online marketplaces must be given greater legal responsibility for the safety of products sold on their sites so that consumers are far better protected from dangerous and illegal items.

Sue Davies, Which? Head of Consumer Protection Policy, said: “Many parents will be appalled by our research which has revealed that some toys bought from online marketplaces are failing to meet safety standards and could pose a serious safety risk to children playing with them.

“Consumers should be able to trust that products sold in the UK are safe and meet the standards required, yet a woeful lack of checks and monitoring by online marketplaces means dangerous toys are entering people’s homes.

“It is absolutely crucial that online marketplaces are urgently given greater legal responsibility for the safety of products sold on their sites so that consumers are far better protected from dangerous and illegal items.”

Three in five people have received a scam delivery text in the last year, Which? finds

Three in five people have received fake delivery company texts over the last year as fraudsters exploit the pandemic, according to new research from Which?.

Text scams have boomed as Covid confined millions of people to their homes and consumers became increasingly reliant on deliveries, with fraudsters posing as couriers and delivery companies and attempting to trick people into handing over their bank details via text.

A Which? survey of over 2,000 people in May revealed that three in five people (61%) had received a fake delivery company text in the past year.

Of those who received the scam text messages claiming to be from a delivery company, four in five (79%) said they realised it was fake straight away but 3 per cent said they lost money to the scam.

For those caught out, the financial and emotional impact can be devastating.

Which? also conducted its own experiment, setting up four new SIM cards on the UK’s big four network providers – EE, O2, Three and Vodafone. The numbers were never shared with anyone but two out of the four received at least one scam text message in just a two-week period.

Scammers use computers to generate combinations of numbers and send messages in bulk using ‘SIM farms’ – devices that operate several SIM cards at a time. The equipment and software is available online, and anyone can pick up cheap pay-as-you-go SIMs with unlimited free texts.

Numbers are often masked or ‘spoofed’ to avoid detection – so your phone might say you have received a text from a delivery company, when it’s actually a scammer.

The scam most often reported to Which? in the past three months has been fake text messages – also known as ‘smishing’ (SMS phishing) – pretending to be from Royal Mail. Of those surveyed who said they received one or more scam texts, seven in ten (70%) received the Royal Mail scam text.

The message usually requests a small payment for a parcel to be delivered, with a link to a copycat Royal Mail website, and victims who fell for it told us they were then called by scammers to try to trick them into sending large sums of money.

DHL, DPD and Hermes were the other most commonly impersonated companies in our survey. Of those who received a scam text message claiming to be from a delivery company, roughly one in three said the scam text pretended to be from DHL, DPD or Hermes (32% for DHL and DPD and 31% for Hermes).

One in eight scam texts (12%) impersonated  UPS over text.

Text messages claiming to be from couriers can also spread harmful malware. Spyware known as FluBot has been circulating through a message claiming to be from the delivery service DHL, which once downloaded could access sensitive information on your device.

Although companies being impersonated have no legal responsibility to deal with these scams, Which? believes they could find better ways to communicate with customers using text messages and do more to help raise awareness of scams.

Companies can register a recognisable sender ID to protect it against spoofing – although some spoofed messages can still slip through due to limitations of these protections and other weaknesses in SMS processes. Consumers would be better protected if it became standard practice for certain types of companies, such as banks, not to include links or payment requests in text messages – although this may not be possible in all cases.

While the telecoms industry is taking steps to address the explosion in text scams, there are clearly limits to how effective existing prevention measures are, as consumers continue to receive regular scam texts. The telecoms sector should continue to work to find solutions to protect consumers against scam texts.

Companies likely to be impersonated by scammers must be careful how they use SMS, and communicate clearly to their customers how and in what circumstances they will use SMS.

Consumers can sign up to Which?’s scam alert service in order to familiarise themselves with some of the latest tactics used by fraudsters.

The consumer champion has also launched a Scam Sharer tool to help it gather evidence in its work to protect consumers from fraud. More than 5,000 scams have been shared with Which? via the Scam Sharer tool since it went live on 17 March 2021.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said: “Our research shows how fraudsters have bombarded Britain with scam delivery texts on an industrial scale as they try to exploit the unprecedented conditions of the pandemic.

“Couriers and the telecoms industry must take further steps to protect consumers, by making it harder for fraudsters to exploit systemic weaknesses to reach potential victims, and by making people more aware of how to spot such scams.

“In the meantime, people can sign up to Which?’s scam alert service to keep themselves, their friends and family informed about the latest tactics used by fraudsters.”

What to do if you fall victim to a text scam 

Report the scam text by forwarding it to your network provider on 7726.

If you have fallen victim to a text scam, you should contact your bank to ensure the scammer cannot take any more money from your account and ask to be reimbursed.

Many banks have promised to reimburse blameless victims of this kind of fraud by signing up to the voluntary authorised payments code. However, banks might challenge customers if they think the customer didn’t take precautions.

If consumers don’t have any luck getting their money back from their bank, the last resort would be to complain to the Financial Ombudsman.

Link to Which?’s scam alert service: https://campaigns.which.co.uk/scam-alert-service/

Link to Which?’s Scam Sharer tool: https://act.which.co.uk/scam-sharer

CMA to investigate Amazon and Google over fake reviews

The CMA has opened a formal probe into Amazon and Google over concerns that they have not been doing enough to combat fake reviews on their sites.

In this next phase of the work, the Competititon and Markets Authority (CMA) will gather further information to determine whether these two firms may have broken consumer law by taking insufficient action to protect shoppers from fake reviews.

The move comes after an initial CMA investigation, which opened in May 2020, and assessed several platforms’ internal systems and processes for identifying and dealing with fake reviews.

This work has raised specific concerns such as whether Amazon and Google have been doing enough to:

  • Detect fake and misleading reviews or suspicious patterns of behaviour. For example, where the same users have reviewed the same range of products or businesses at similar times to each other and there is no connection between those products or businesses – or where the review suggests that the reviewer has received a payment or other incentive to write a positive review.
  • Investigate and, where necessary, remove promptly fake and misleading reviews from their platforms.
  • Impose adequate sanctions on reviewers or businesses to deter them and others from posting fake or misleading reviews on their platforms – including those who have published these types of reviews many times.

The CMA is also concerned that Amazon’s systems have been failing adequately to prevent and deter some sellers from manipulating product listings – for example, by co-opting positive reviews from other products.

Fake and misleading reviews have the potential to impact on businesses’ star ratings and how prominently companies and products are displayed to consumers, changing their whole shopping experience.

Andrea Coscelli, the CMA’s Chief Executive, said: “Our worry is that millions of online shoppers could be misled by reading fake reviews and then spending their money based on those recommendations. Equally, it’s simply not fair if some businesses can fake 5-star reviews to give their products or services the most prominence, while law-abiding businesses lose out.

“We are investigating concerns that Amazon and Google have not been doing enough to prevent or remove fake reviews to protect customers and honest businesses. It’s important that these tech platforms take responsibility and we stand ready to take action if we find that they are not doing enough.”

If, after investigating, the CMA considers the firms have broken consumer protection law, it can take enforcement action. This could include securing formal commitments from the firms to change the way they deal with fake reviews or escalating to court action if needed. However, the CMA has not reached a view on whether Amazon and Google have broken the law at this stage.

This latest work builds on action taken by the CMA last year over the trading of fake reviews, which resulted in Facebook, Instagram and eBay removing groups and banning individuals for buying and selling fake reviews on their sites.

The CMA’s investigation into fake reviews is part of a broader programme of CMA work, which includes establishing a new pro-competition regulatory regime for digital markets, to curb the power of big tech. This will be achieved through the Digital Markets Unit. As the CMA works with the Government on proposals, it will continue to use its existing powers to their fullest extent in order to examine and protect competition in these areas.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “We have repeatedly exposed fake reviews on websites including Amazon and Google, so this investigation is a positive step. The CMA must now move swiftly towards establishing whether these companies have broken the law.

“This should prompt Amazon and Google to finally take the necessary steps to protect users from the growing tide of fake reviews on their platforms and, if they fail to do so, the regulator must be prepared to take strong enforcement action.

“The government must also give online platforms greater legal responsibility for tackling fake and fraudulent content on their sites – including fake and misleading review activity.”

More information about the CMA’s probe into Amazon and Google can be found on the Online Reviews case page.

Popular sunscreens failing to live up to sun protection, says Which?

Popular sunscreens – including a leading children’s sun lotion – are failing to meet their SPF and UVA claims in Which? tests.

As people head out to enjoy the great outdoors this summer, it is important for everyone, especially children whose skin is more sensitive than adult skin, to protect their skin from harmful UVA and UVB rays that could lead to skin damage and cause skin cancer. But worryingly, Which? tests of high street sunscreens found some big brand products that did not live up to their claims.

The consumer champion tested 15 branded and own-label sunscreens, including 11 SPF30 adult products and four SPF50 kids sun creams, assessing their SPF and UVA performance, as well as how easy they were to apply.

While most passed Which?’s tests, two products – Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 (£7) and Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ Spray (£6) – both failed at least one key protection test and have been labelled Which? “Don’t Buy” products.

Both brands have refuted Which? findings.

Sun Protection Factor (SPF), which shows how much a product protects against UVB rays, is one of the most important considerations when buying sunscreen, especially for young children who tend to have more sensitive skin compared to adults.

Shockingly, Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ failed Which?’s SPF test, falling far short of the SPF50 claim on the bottle. A further test on a second sample found the measured SPF was even lower.

In addition to SPF, consumers should also pay attention to the protection sunscreens provide against UVA rays, which can lead to premature ageing along with skin cancer. This is usually indicated with a UVA seal – a circle with ‘UVA’ inside it – which shows that it meets the EU recommendations for UVA sun protection, or the Boots UVA star rating system used to indicate a higher level of UVA protection.

Although it passed the SPF test, Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 failed Which?’s UVA tests twice. While the results were close to the minimum required for it to pass, it did not quite make the grade.

Thirteen other own-label and branded sunscreen products passed all Which? tests, including Asda’s Protect Cooling Clear Sun Mist SPF 30 (£3.50) and Boots Soltan Kids Protect & Moisturise Suncare Lotion SPF50+(£4) which were among the cheapest of all the products.

Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said: “Whether you’re finally off on holiday or staying at home this summer, it’s important to stock up on sunscreen to keep your skin protected from harmful rays. But our research shows consumers cannot always trust that these essential products will provide the level of protection they expect for themselves and their children.

“It is concerning that two sunscreens from respected brands have failed Which?’s tests. We would advise consumers not to buy these products as there are alternatives available that are both cheaper and performed better when we tested them.”

A L’Oreal (makers of Garnier Ambre Solaire) spokesperson said it disputes Which?’s findings. It has run independent tests of the UVA properties of the product which show that it passes the tests, complies with all applicable standards and provides proper sun protection for consumers.

It added: “Garnier Ambre Solaire has been the expert at suncare innovation for over 85 years and is the only suncare brand with research recognised by the British Skin Foundation. We take product efficacy very seriously.

“Our UVA claims are supported by robust photoprotection testing carried out independently under ISO standard ISO 24443:2012 and meet the requirements of the European Recommendation for sun protection products.

“Given this, we are very surprised by the Which? results and have requested a meeting with the Which? researchers so our scientists can take them through our test results which confirm the efficacy of this product.”

A Beiersdorf (makers of Nivea) spokesperson said: “The safety of our products is of utmost importance. Nivea Sun prides itself on its decades of experience in sun care and is dedicated to developing products that reliably and effectively protect against sun damage.

“When this product was independently tested in 2019 it achieved an SPF of 62. When we re-checked this batch, the result was a UVA protection factor of 25.8. Based on this data and our comprehensive quality requirements, we disagree with the reported Which? findings.”

Five things you need to know about staying safe in the sun

  • The World Health Organization recommends using 35ml of sunscreen to cover the whole body; this is about seven teaspoons’ worth. It’s best to apply to all exposed areas 15 minutes before going outside, and reapply every two hours, especially after swimming or other outdoor physical activity.
  • UVA and UVB are both types of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and have been linked to skin cancer. UVB is the main cause of sunburn, while UVA can cause premature skin ageing. UVB rays are blocked by glass, but UVA can penetrate that and clouds.
  • The sun protection factor (SPF) shows how much protection sunscreen provides against UVB radiation. It indicates how much longer skin covered with the sunscreen takes to redden compared with unprotected skin.
  • When buying sunscreen, NHS recommends choosing a product with at least 4-star UVA protection indicated on the label.
  • For children, buying an SPF 50+ sun cream is important, but buying a decent sunscreen is only one part of keeping them safe in the sun. Getting kids to wear a wide-brimmed hat – to protect their neck and ears – and covering up with a T-shirt or an SPF sun suit while outdoors helps. Wearing sunglasses and avoiding the hottest part of the day are both advisable things to do. Babies should always be kept out of the sun.

It is recommended you wear sunscreen when the UV index hits three, the below map shows how often this happened around the country in 2020.

Counting the cost of food delivery apps: Which? investigation

A Which? snapshot investigation found ordering takeaways via food delivery apps was up to 44 per cent more expensive than going directly to the restaurant, while new research from the consumer champion also reveals that app users are sometimes struggling to get a satisfactory solution when something goes wrong with their order. 

Which? researchers looked at the costs of ordering meals for between two to four people from five restaurants and cafes, both directly and on food delivery sites Deliveroo, UberEats and Just Eat. Across the five restaurants, ordering via a takeaway app proved 23 per cent (£7.14) more expensive on average than ordering directly from the restaurant.

Orders on Deliveroo were the most expensive overall, costing an average of 31 per cent (£9.91) more per order than ordering directly from the restaurant. UberEats orders cost an extra 25 per cent (£7.93), while JustEat orders were only 7 per cent (£1.56) more expensive.

JustEat did not deliver for one of the restaurants Which? looked at and on another, it applied a £7.30 discount. JustEat said it offers a price promise to help ensure customers do not pay more for food they order through its app compared to ordering via the restaurant’s online delivery service.

The most expensive order was a £43.94 Deliveroo takeaway from a burrito and taco restaurant, which cost 44 per cent (£12.29) more than ordering directly from the restaurant. Even before adding delivery and service charges, the cost of the food was 26 per cent (£8.30) more.

Prices on apps are generally set by restaurants. However, restaurants often increase the price of items when bought through the apps to cover the service fees that the apps charge them. Ordering directly from the restaurant also does not incur the delivery charges that ordering from a delivery app does.

Costs vary between apps, with each one charging different service and delivery fees.

For restaurants forced to close during national or regional lockdowns, the apps offered a lifeline to keep their businesses open. However, a number of the restaurants investigated told Which? they have had to raise their prices in the apps to account for the commissions of between 15-35 per cent they have to pay the delivery services.

The apps say their commissions are essential for running the service – for example, insurance, paying delivery riders, customer services and services offered to restaurants.

During the pandemic, people’s use of food delivery apps increased as consumers looked online for their weekly takeaway and grocery shop. But if customers are feeding a family, these higher prices can quickly pile up. Consumers may not be aware that they are paying these higher prices if they have not visited the restaurant themselves.

In Which?’s recent survey of more than 2,000 UK adults, more than half of people (56%) told the consumer champion they had used delivery apps for takeaways or groceries.

Around six in 10 people told Which? they used takeaway apps at least monthly pre-pandemic, compared with seven in 10 now. JustEat was the most widely used app, with two in five adults (39%) choosing it compared with a quarter (26%) for UberEats and one in five (20%) for Deliveroo.

This new research from the consumer champion also found that customers frequently have problems with orders and often find there is no way to effectively complain or put things right when this happens.

The most common issues with deliveries were late arrival, cold food and missing items. Others reported ruined items, as well as orders not turning up.

Six in 10 (59%) Deliveroo users surveyed told Which? they had a problem in the last 12  months, while more than half (53%) UberEats and JustEat (53%) customers reported having an issue with an order.

The most common resolution for UberEats customers was being offered a cash refund, but Deliveroo and JustEat users were more often offered credit or a voucher in the app. Some of these credits and vouchers come with expiry dates, and if consumers are not regular users, they could lose their money. JustEat said customers are asked to apply the credit to their account within 30 days, after which they are able to use it indefinitely.

Of those who had a problem, more than half of Deliveroo customers (53%) and two in five JustEat (46%) and UberEats (42%) customers found it difficult to complain the last time something went wrong, according to Which?’s survey. Only around half of those who did complain were happy with how it was resolved.

Which? believes food delivery apps should make the responsibilities of the restaurant and app clearer so customers are not at risk of losing out if things go wrong. The consumer champion heard from many people across all of the food delivery apps who found it hard to speak to someone about their order and were passed between the delivery driver, the app and the restaurant.

If a customer is due a refund, consumer law is clear that they should get it in the same way they paid out originally, unless they agree otherwise. Customers do not have to accept credit or a voucher in the app if they paid with their own credit or debit card.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said: “Next time you fancy a takeaway, you should be aware that the undoubted convenience offered by a delivery app comes with a hidden additional cost. If something goes wrong with your order, you might also find yourself caught between the restaurant and the app.

“Food delivery apps should do more to make the responsibilities of the restaurant and themselves clear so consumers are not caught between the two if there’s a problem with their order.

“If customers are owed a refund for a delivery which has gone wrong, they should remember they may be entitled to a cash refund under consumer law – they don’t have to accept credit or a voucher if it isn’t what they want.”

A Deliveroo spokesperson said: “Deliveroo always aims to offer our customers great value while also delivering sustainable growth for our restaurant partners. We encourage restaurants to set the same menu prices as they offer customers when dining in, and the commission we charge is then reinvested back into our business, paying for riders’ fees, customer services and upgrading our services for restaurants.

“We have a positive track record of helping our small restaurant partners throughout the pandemic and this will continue to be our priority as restaurants look towards a full reopening.”

A JustEat spokesperson said: “Just Eat is only successful if our restaurant partners are successful.  We believe our commission rates are aligned with the value we provide to our partners and we have a track record of helping restaurants prosper.

“It’s really important to us that our customers have a positive experience when using Just Eat. Whenever we’re made aware of any customer experience that falls short of the high standards we hope to deliver, we will always investigate and take appropriate action to ensure we find a suitable solution.”

An Uber Eats spokeswoman said: “At Uber Eats, we are completely focused on ensuring that the best restaurants and the best selection of food is available to customers, delivered in an average time of less than 30 minutes.

“We have a dedicated customer service team to help customers who have issues with their orders, and we would encourage anyone who does have an issue to reach out in the Help section of the app.”

Looking for Love? Romance fraud has soared by 40% during the pandemic, Which? warns

Which? is calling for greater protections for devastated victims of romance fraud, as new analysis from the consumer champion shows a dramatic spike in cases during the pandemic. 

Dating without meeting in person has become the new normal in the last year, giving fraudsters new opportunities to take advantage of online daters.

Which? analysis of Action Fraud data shows romance fraud was up by 40 per cent in the year to April 2021, with over 7,500 reported scams.

Reported losses reached £73.9 million during this period but the true figure is likely to be much higher as many victims are too embarrassed or upset to tell the authorities.

Romance scams are a sophisticated type of fraud – with scammers preying on the emotional vulnerability of the victim and building trust with them before asking for money. Fraudsters often claim that they need the money to travel to the UK to build a life together.

Andrew (not his real name) was exchanging messages with a potential love interest on dating website ‘Older Dating Online’ in November 2019. After weeks of emails and telephone calls, plans were made to meet for the first time.

As the woman was supposedly based in Russia, she asked for £650 to obtain a passport. This was quickly followed by more requests – £3,000 to prove to Russian authorities that she had sufficient cash to visit the UK and funds to cover medical expenses for her father who had Covid-19.

In many cases, scammers are likely to be gangs of organised criminals looking to part people from their hard-earned cash.

He said: “I became suspicious and contacted my bank to report the scam, but the money couldn’t be recovered. I haven’t dated at all since the scam. I am not one who exudes confidence in that area and with Covid-19 rearing its ugly head, more traditional ways have not been possible.

“I didn’t report what happened on the website. Likely at the time for the reason I guessed it was my fault for being taken in, not their fault for being in existence.”

David, 65, (not his real name) was also cheated out of nearly £4,000 after meeting someone on Twitter. This scammer posed as a young woman, but David later discovered he was messaging a man in Nigeria.

David thought the money he sent was to pay for a flight ticket and a visa for her to come to the UK to live, marry him and settle down as a family. He said: “After I found out the truth, I was heartbroken and very upset.

“My emotions were all over the place finding it difficult to accept that I had been taken in. This is such a cruel thing to do to an elderly pensioner who wanted love but instead got fleeced by this evil corrupt man who has no shame in what he did to me and no doubt has done to many others.”

Twitter has since permanently suspended the scammer’s profile.

When online dating, consumers should always be on high alert for fraudsters using stolen photos – even in video calls.

One Which? member reported via the consumer champion’s Scam Watch inbox that she had a strange video call with someone she later discovered was using stolen video footage. She said: “How they did it I have no idea because I discovered those pictures were of a plastic surgeon in the USA. It worries me that some women will fall for it.”

To find out whether a photo is fake, consumers can use TinEye or Google Image Search to do a reverse image search. This tracks where else on the internet this photo exists to see if it could be a stock or stolen image.

The consumer champion’s findings raise serious questions about the legal responsibilities of online platforms and online sites to protect their users from fake and fraudulent content and potential scams.

The contingent reimbursement model code, in place since May 2019 and signed by the majority of banks, makes clear that victims of bank transfer scams should be reimbursed for their losses when they are not at fault.

Victims who, like Andrew, are convinced to transfer funds to non-UK accounts will not be covered by the code. Only transfers between UK accounts can benefit from the limited protection offered by the code. Under this code, 38% of all losses were returned to romance fraud victims in 2020, up from 6% in the six months before the code was introduced.

However, Which? is concerned that banks are applying the code inconsistently. While some firms reimburse the majority of APP fraud victims, others only reimburse around one in 10 – meaning that many victims face a lottery when it comes to getting their money back.

Customers in need of support when trying to recoup their losses often face a grilling over their actions from banks, compounding the devastating emotional impact of their ordeal.

The consumer champion is calling for the Payment Systems Regulator and government to establish mandatory standards of consumer protection to protect victims from the current unfair and inconsistent approach by industry. Banks should also be made to regularly publish their reimbursement rates to improve transparency.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said: “Romance scams are particularly devastating for victims, who may be vulnerable when they are targeted by fraudsters – and it is very worrying to see such a huge rise in these scams as criminals look to exploit the pandemic.

“Where appropriate, banks and payment providers should be following the code they signed up to and reimbursing victims of scams that use sophisticated psychological tactics to trick victims into handing over their cash. Anyone who is struggling to get their money back from their bank should report this to the Financial Ombudsman Service to review their case.

“The voluntary code on scams has led to a reimbursement lottery for victims. It should be replaced with mandatory standards for protection and reimbursement and strong enforcement for firms that don’t follow the rules.”