Tag: Which?

Which? investigation reveals fake Google review industry is booming

Businesses across the UK are artificially boosting their online ratings by paying firms for fake Google reviews, as a booming industry in misleading information avoids detection by the tech giant, a Which? investigation has revealed.

The consumer champion’s latest research involved setting up and buying fake reviews for its own fake business listing on Google. Following the trail of these paid-for reviewers, Which? found they were employing similar manipulative tactics for a wide range of businesses – from a stockbroker in Canary Wharf to a bakery in Edinburgh.

The findings have exposed concerning gaps in Google’s monitoring of its review platform, leaving people at risk of being misled into using local businesses that appear to have received glowing endorsements, but could in reality be substandard or in one case potentially even pose a serious financial risk to consumers.

Which? created its own fake Google business listing named ‘Five Star Reviews’. Researchers bought 20 Google reviews for £108 ($150) from one of the review sites it uncovered, easily found through a quick Google search, called Reviewr.

Reviewr says ‘buying Google reviews is undoubtedly a smart choice’ as ‘89% of consumers trust online Google reviews as much as personal recommendations’. It claims to offer ‘100% permanent reviews’ for the platform that won’t be deleted.

Which? was able to choose the star rating for each review. It requested that all were five stars and that it wanted three to five left each day. Which?’s researchers even provided the exact wording they wanted for the 20 reviews – praising how good the made-up business and its fake owner Catherine are. Over the next week they started appearing, left by a variety of Google accounts.

One of the reviews was subsequently deleted, so Which? queried it with its Reviewr account manager and was told that sometimes they see “review filtering”. If that happens, the company said it slows down the rate of posting reviews so that they “stick”.

After further digging into the profiles of these reviewers, Which? then found that many of the Google accounts used to plant its fake reviews had infiltrated Google reviews at scale – reviewing the same selection of businesses all around the country.

Which? linked together 45 businesses that had at least three ‘reviewers’ in common – including a stockbroker in Canary Wharf, a solicitors firm in Liverpool, a dentist in Greater Manchester, a London estate agent and a bakery in Edinburgh – suggesting that each of these businesses paid the same review trading company to post these glowing appraisals.

Several of the profiles had left reviews of at least 15 businesses. Of those, all had rated an SEO advisory business in Edinburgh and a psychic in London as five stars – an unlikely coincidence.

In some cases, these fake positive reviews could be masking genuine concerns about serious financial risk to consumers. The stockbroker based in Canary Wharf had, for six months in 2020, received a raft of negative reviews – many citing “shockingly poor customer service”.

Concerningly, one reviewer claimed to have lost £27,000 worth of investments because the business acted against his wishes, while another called the company ‘scammers’ and a third reviewer said it was the worst broker they had ever dealt with.

However, between two and four months prior to Which?’s investigation, 30 five-star reviews left in quick succession had boosted the company’s rating. Which? linked many of these reviewers to other businesses identified in its investigation – including one profile that had also reviewed Which?’s own fake business.

Separately, another reviewer who had left reviews across a number of these businesses had also given five stars to a Liverpool-based solicitor claiming that it had helped them to get back £45,400 from a bank after being scammed. If these reviews are based on fabricated experiences, consumers in a vulnerable financial position could end up using the service based on a false recommendation.

One reviewer had left an extremely unlikely series of ratings. He had praised a Surrey-based limo hire company, stating that he had lived in the area for five years and used them for all airport trips, and in the same month used the services of a Glasgow-based electric gate installation firm for his home – the locations that are 412 miles apart!

Over the next few months, the same profile used a dentist in Greater Manchester, a paving company in Bournemouth, and praised the services of a locksmith in Cambridgeshire for rescuing his two-year-old daughter from a locked car outside of her nursery.

During its investigation, Which? also uncovered four other review sites, AppSally, BuyServiceUSA, DripFeedReviews and Link Building Services, that appeared to offer Google reviews for sale in bulk. They were all easily found in Google search results for the search term “Buy Google reviews”.

A recent Which? survey found that, of those who had used review websites or apps to look for customer reviews on a local trade business over the previous year, almost half (46%) said that they had read Google reviews.

When Which? shared its findings with Google, it quickly shut down the fake business Which? had set up. It said deliberately inauthentic content is in breach of its policies and said: “When we find scammers trying to mislead people, we take swift action ranging from content removal to account suspension and even litigation.” Paid fake reviews is a complex, persistent threat, according to Google.

Although Google says it has clear policies that prohibit this type of activity, and mechanisms in place to analyse reviews, based on its findings, Which? has concerns that its approach is not effective enough. Online platforms that host reviews, including Google, must do more to proactively prevent fake reviews from infiltrating their sites.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is currently investigating the problem of fake reviews. To protect consumers from being misled, the consumer champion is calling on the regulator to take strong action against sites that host reviews if it finds that they are failing to prevent fake reviews flooding their platforms.

It must also take swift and effective action that puts a stop to sites that are trading, or facilitating the trading, of fake reviews, a practice which is likely to be in breach of consumer law. If the CMA’s investigation doesn’t resolve the problem, the government must consider how it will increase websites’ legal responsibilities for fake and misleading review activity.

Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said: “Businesses exploiting flaws in Google’s review system to rise up the ranks are putting honest businesses on the back foot and leaving consumers at risk of being misled.

“The regulator must stamp out this harmful behaviour and hold sites to account if they fail to protect their users, otherwise the government must urgently increase websites’ legal responsibilities for misleading content on their platforms.

“Google, and other sites, must clamp down on and prevent these manipulative practices to ensure that consumers can trust the reviews that they read.”

Why are women on course to have £100,000 less in their pension than men at retirement?

Let’s close the £100,000 #GenderPensionGap.

On average a woman in her twenties today is set to retire with £100,000 less in her pension than a man the same age. To make up the difference they’d have to start work a lot younger.

There a lots of reasons that the average 20 year old women is on course to have £100,000 less in her pension than a man the same age.

The amount people save into their pension is generally a percentage of their salary or income. So anything that reduces your income will directly affect your pension.

Women are more likely to face life events which negatively affect how they save for their retirement.

They’re more likely to take time out to raise a family, manage caring responsibilities, be in lower paid roles or work part time (75% of part time workers are women*).

The gender pay gap also plays it’s part so its really important to raise awareness around how these challenges can impact retirement planning, but we’re here to help and there are things you can do to help reduce the gender pension gap.

* Scottish Widows Women & Retirement Report 2020.

Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “Our research has shown that women face significant disparities when it comes to saving for retirement, with mothers particularly at risk of retiring with smaller pensions – potentially tens of thousands less over their careers than men and women working full-time.

“To address this imbalance, the government should make a contribution to the pensions of first-time parents to ensure they can retire with an adequate pension pot.”

The coast is dear

Some UK seaside accommodation prices up by a third

Holidaymakers face paying more for a UK seaside break this summer as a snapshot investigation suggests some accommodation prices have risen by an average of 35 per cent compared with last summer, according to new research from Which?.

With demand for UK holidays expected to soar this summer, Which? tracked the prices of 15 holiday lets in the top 10 most visited UK seaside destinations, and found that in every case, prices have increased from last summer.

The consumer champion’s snapshot investigation looked at prices for 15 properties listed between Airbnb and Vrbo in the past year, in destinations such as St Ives, Whitby, Llandudno and Brighton.

Which? first looked at the prices of these listings in May and June 2020, for various dates in July and August 2020. The research then looked at the prices of the same properties in February 2021 for similar dates in July and August 2021, and found all had increased in price, with an average increase of 35 per cent.

The largest markup of the properties Which? looked at was for a one-bedroom maisonette in Brighton on Airbnb. When the consumer champion checked the price of the listing in May 2020 for the first week of August 2020, the cost was £53 per night. But when it checked again in February 2021 for the same period the property was £127 per night – an increase of 140 per cent.

It also found a 70 per cent increase in price for a one-bedroom property in the centre of Eastbourne on Airbnb. Last year, for a one-week holiday in the first week of August, it would have cost £409. This year, the same week costs £696.

On Vrbo, a one-bedroom property in Bournemouth rose from £722 for the first week of August last year to £958 this year – an increase of 33 per cent.

Vrbo told Which?: “We are operating as a two-sided marketplace, connecting holidaymakers and holiday-home hosts, without being part of any contractual agreements between those parties at any time. That means that all rental contracts are closed between the holidaymaker and the holiday-home host, or the property manager directly.

“The hosts are also in control and individually set the rental price for their properties, the payment terms and all cancellation policies. Those policies are stated on the booking page for each property and must be acknowledged, and agreed to, by all holidaymakers before a booking on Vrbo is possible.

“Vrbo’s service fee is a percentage of the total amount of the reservation, excluding taxes and refundable fees paid by the guest. The service fee amount varies. Generally, the higher the reservation amount, the lower the percentage of the service fee. A value-added tax is charged on the service fee where required by local regulations.

“Vrbo does not set, change or influence the property prices a host chooses. However, Vrbo provides useful tips and information for hosts on how to be successful with their listing on Vrbo. For instance, Vrbo’s MarketMaker™ gives hosts access to real-time data about competitors, holidaymakers, local events and holidays. This allows them to adjust their prices, if needed, to remain competitive and attractive for holidaymakers.”

Other price rises were more modest. A one-bedroom cottage on Airbnb in Scarborough increased by seven per cent for similar August dates this year, while a one-bedroom property on Vrbo in Swanage with views over the Purbeck Hills had gone up by just two per cent.

Hosts on Airbnb set the prices and cleaning fees for properties listed on the platform. Airbnb said the price increases highlighted by Which? were “isolated examples”, while Vrbo also said hosts are in control and individually set the rental price for their properties.

According to the government’s current plans for releasing England from lockdown, self-contained holiday accommodation breaks are set to return from 12 April.

Demand for UK holidays is likely to be even higher this summer than last year, as there is currently less risk involved in taking a UK holiday than a holiday abroad while coronavirus restrictions, such as testing and hotel quarantine for UK arrivals, remain in place.

There is still some risk involved in booking holidays in the UK for this summer, such as being told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace or local restrictions preventing you from travelling. However most of these risks can be overcome by booking with a reputable company that has a generous flexible booking policy.

Which? is encouraging anyone booking a UK holiday to ensure they choose a flexible accommodation provider that has committed to offering full cash refunds or fee-free rebooking if your holiday is unable to go ahead as planned due to coronavirus.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “Many holidaymakers are looking forward to finally going to the seaside this summer, so it’s perhaps not a surprise that high demand has seen prices for some destinations shoot up too.

“If people are prepared to pay more for their summer holidays this year, it’s essential that they know their money will be protected or returned to them without hassle in the event they cannot travel as planned. Make sure you choose a provider that offers fair and flexible booking terms, so you won’t be left chasing a refund if something goes wrong.”

Full table of price increases:

Airbnb told Which?: “This misleading research features isolated examples that are not representative of prices on Airbnb. A survey shows that more than half of UK guests choose Airbnb because it is more affordable than a hotel or other options.

“With the Great British staycation back on the horizon, hosts are ready to provide clean and private accommodation to help families and loved ones safely reconnect, and around half say they rely on the additional income from hosting.” 

UK smartphone owners could be entitled to a £480 million payout

Around 29 million Britons could be entitled to a payout after being overcharged for their smartphones, if a landmark claim by consumer champion Which? is successful.

According to Which?, consumers could be owed a collective £482.5 million in damages from multi billion-dollar tech giant Qualcomm.

Which? believes Qualcomm has breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.  The result is that it is able to charge manufacturers like Apple and Samsung inflated fees for technology licences, which have then been passed on to consumers in the form of higher smartphone prices.  

Which? is seeking damages for all affected Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased since 1st October 2015. 

It estimates that individual consumers could be due up to £30 depending on the number and type of smartphones purchased during that period, although it is expected at this stage that most consumers would receive around £17.

Qualcomm has already been found liable by regulators and courts around the world for similar anticompetitive behaviour and Which? is urging Qualcomm to settle this claim without the need for litigation by offering consumers their money back. 

Which?’s legal action could help millions of consumers get redress for Qualcomm’s anticompetitive abuse. This is possible because of the opt-out collective action regime that was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It has been near impossible for individual consumers to take on big companies like Qualcomm in the past, but the collective regime opened the door for Which? to represent consumers where large numbers of people have been harmed by anticompetitive conduct.

This action is vital to obtain redress for consumers and to send a clear message to powerful companies like Qualcomm, that if they engage in harmful, manipulative practices, Which? stands ready to take action.

Anabel Hoult, CEO of Which?, said: “We believe Qualcomm’s practices are anticompetitive and have so far taken around £480 million from UK consumers’ pockets – this needs to stop. We are sending a clear warning that if companies like Qualcomm indulge in manipulative practices which harm consumers, Which? is prepared to take action. 

“If Qualcomm has abused its market power it must be held to account. Without Which? bringing this claim on behalf of millions of affected UK consumers, it would simply not be realistic for people to seek damages from the company on an individual basis – that’s why it’s so important that consumers can come together and claim the redress they are entitled to.”

Visit www.smartphoneclaim.co.uk to find out more about the claim and sign up for campaign updates. 

Aldi named UK’s top in-store supermarket in Which? survey

Aldi has been named the UK’s favourite in-store supermarket in Which?’s annual satisfaction survey, while Ocado slipped down the online grocery rankings after shoppers struggled to secure delivery slots during the coronavirus pandemic.

The consumer champion surveyed more than 3,000 members of the public about their experience with supermarkets, asking customers to rate their shopping experience in a range of categories such as in-store appearance and layout, quality of produce, availability of online delivery slots and value for money.

German discounter Aldi emerged as the top in-store supermarket in the UK after receiving a five-star rating for value for money – the only supermarket to achieve this in the survey – and a 73 per cent customer score.

While Aldi received mediocre ratings across all other categories, including two stars for store layout and three stars for the quality of its own-label products and fresh food, price was the most important consideration for customers when choosing where to shop.

In 2020, Aldi was the cheapest supermarket to shop in six of the eight months it was included in Which?’s monthly supermarket price analysis.

In this year’s online supermarket survey, Ocado fell to joint-fifth place alongside Waitrose and Morrisons. It struggled to meet demand when the pandemic hit and was ultimately forced to close its website and app – the latter for several months. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it received just two-star ratings for the availability of delivery slots.

It also received two-stars for value for money, reflecting its regular appearance as the second-most expensive supermarket after Waitrose in our monthly analysis.

One Ocado customer told Which?: “During [the first] lockdown I really struggled to get delivery slots, despite being officially classified as vulnerable and having a monthly delivery pass.”

Sainsbury’s was the highest-scoring online supermarket with an overall customer score of 71 per cent and a four-star rating for the availability of delivery slots.

It was also named a Which? Recommended Provider (WRP) for its online service. The company’s high standards for food hygiene and clear nutritional labelling on its own-brand products also contributed to the decision to name it a WRP.

M&S came second in the in-store supermarkets table after receiving a five-star rating for the appearance and layout of its stores and the quality of its own-label and fresh products.

In joint-third place were Lidl, Tesco and Waitrose. Much like its rival Aldi, Lidl performed well when it came to value for money, achieving four-star ratings, but it failed to impress customers in other categories.

Despite receiving five stars for store layout and food quality, Waitrose was let down by its two-star rating for value for money.

Co-op finished bottom of the in-store shopping table as it failed to impress customers in key categories. It received just one-star for value for money, and two-stars for its store layout and food quality.

Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said: “Many households have felt the pinch during the pandemic, and value for money was the most important factor when shopping in-store in our annual supermarket survey – which explains why Aldi came out on top.

“Online supermarkets have also been a lifeline for many people during the pandemic, and while Sainsbury’s rose to the challenge by massively increasing its delivery capacity, Ocado’s reputation took a hit after the scale of demand meant it stopped accepting new customers and shut down its app at the height of lockdown.”

More than two million people haven’t received money back for flights they couldn’t board

Approximately 2.3 million people across the UK have not received money back for flights they could not take in the last year, with many unable to fly because of national or local lockdowns or restrictions at their destination, according to new research from Which?.

Since the UK went into its first lockdown in the middle of March last year, millions of people have had flight bookings that were not cancelled by the airline, but for reasons that were often out of their control they could not take, meaning that they were not legally entitled to a refund or guaranteed a successful claim through their travel insurance or bank.

Research from the consumer champion has found that approximately 2.3 million people across the UK have been left out of pocket for flights that were not cancelled, despite circumstances often meaning they reasonably – or in some cases, legally – could not travel to their destination.

Under EU 261 regulations, passengers flying on an EU-based carrier or flying from a country in the EU are entitled to a full refund within seven days if their flight is cancelled by the operator, but the regulations do not currently offer passengers any protection if their flight is not cancelled. However, in some circumstances where passengers couldn’t travel, it could be argued that the contract between the passenger and the airline had been frustrated.

Many passengers have been prevented from travelling because of local or national lockdowns, restrictions preventing entry at their destination, or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) advising against non-essential travel.

Passengers in these circumstances would often have only been given the choice of rebooking their flight or losing their money. Rebooking may have meant paying a significant difference in fare if the new flights were more expensive, and trying to choose new dates without knowing when international travel is likely to resume again.

Of those who told Which? they didn’t get their money back, half (49%) claimed they could not travel because of national or regional lockdown restrictions instructing them to stay at home. While during the first national and local lockdowns instructions against non-essential travel were not always written into law, many passengers did not fly due to government guidance.

At the beginning of 2020, Rebekah Evans, from Barry in Wales, booked flights from Bristol to Turkey in October with Easyjet via an online travel agent, costing over £2,000.

Two weeks before their holiday, Vale of Glamorgan entered a local lockdown that was set to be reviewed the day before they were due to fly. Rebekah did not rebook the flights or accept a voucher in the hope that they would be allowed to fly if the local lockdown was lifted.

When the day arrived though, the Welsh government announced a rolling lockdown, instructing people not to leave Wales unless for emergencies. At the time, England was not in a lockdown, so the flight went ahead. Rebekah initially missed out on the opportunity to claim a voucher for the cost of her flight, but since Which? intervened, Easyjet has agreed to offer Rebekah a voucher as a gesture of goodwill.

While travel under this lockdown was not prevented by law, during the November lockdown and under the current national lockdown restrictions, all non-essential travel has been illegal. Despite this, some airlines are currently still operating flights and refusing refunds for those who cannot legally travel.

Ayesha Ellis, from Essex, had flights for her and her family booked with Ryanair to fly to Gran Canaria on February 13th 2021. These were booked almost a year earlier in March 2020, before the UK went into its first lockdown.

Despite the UK’s current lockdown preventing any non-essential travel, the flight went ahead as scheduled.

Ayesha paid more than £1,600 for her flights, but was told if she wanted to rearrange them, she would have to pay a fee of €95 per person per flight. Because the flights were booked before Ryanair dropped its flight change fee, this would have come to a total of €760 more for her family of four, plus the price difference of the new flights. Ayesha, a travel agent, has still not been refunded the £1,600 and told Which? she will never use the airline again, both personally and in her job.

Just over a quarter (27%) of those left out of pocket said they were unable to fly because of restrictions in place at their destination that would prevent them from entering the country.

Stephen Middleton, from Manchester, booked flights with Ryanair to Spain with his fiancée in July 2020, after the government allowed foreign travel again. They were due to fly in August, but paid more than £280 to move the flights to Christmas Eve after it was announced they would have to quarantine on their arrival back to the UK.

But when the time came for them to take their rearranged flight, they were again unable to travel because of restrictions at the Spanish border preventing them from entering the country. Stephen was told he could move his flights again, but would have had to pay more money to do so.

Others said they were unable to travel because the FCDO had advised against all non-essential travel to their destination, with nearly four in 10 (37%) citing this as their reason for not flying.

While those with package holidays would have had their bookings cancelled by the provider in these circumstances, entitling them to a full refund, many airlines continued to operate flights to countries with an FCDO warning against non-essential travel, on the basis that they needed to operate them as scheduled in order to facilitate essential travel.

While not illegal, travelling against FCDO advice usually invalidates travel insurance, and could potentially put your health at risk by visiting a country with high rates of infection. Additionally, many of those returning from these destinations would have also had to quarantine for two weeks after returning to the UK, with three in 10 (28%) people saying the need to quarantine prevented them from travelling.

Which? first raised the issue of people being unable to get their money back for flights they couldn’t take because of lockdown with both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in March 2020.

While not all passengers who told Which? they hadn’t received their money back were legally prohibited from flying, the consumer champion has shared its findings with the CMA to aid its investigation into whether airlines have breached consumers’ legal rights by failing to offer cash refunds for flights they could not lawfully take because of lockdown restrictions.

Which? is advising anyone considering booking flights for this summer to wait until the situation around international travel becomes clearer, and when the time comes, to book a package holiday rather than a flight-only booking for stronger passenger protections, and only with a trusted provider that offers a generous and flexible booking policy.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “For almost a year now, Which? has been hearing from frustrated passengers who’ve been left out of pocket for flights they were unable to take, often through no fault of their own, because the flight went ahead as scheduled.

“While some have successfully been able to claim on their travel insurance or through their bank, others have been left high and dry.

“With non-essential travel currently illegal, airlines must play their part in protecting public health by ensuring no one is left out of pocket for abiding by the law and not travelling. All airlines should allow passengers the option to cancel for a full refund, as well as fee-free rebooking options, while these restrictions remain in place.”

Very lastminute?

Some Lastminute.com customers still haven’t received all their money back for cancelled holidays, despite the online travel agent committing to the regulator that all refunds would be paid by the end of January, Which? has revealed.

After months of breaking the law on holiday refunds, Lastminute.com was investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in December and it agreed to pay all outstanding package holiday refunds that were cancelled on or before 2 December by the end of January 2021. 

Despite this, Which? has seen reports from several customers through social media who still hadn’t received a full refund after the deadline had passed. 

At the time of the CMA’s intervention, the UK’s seventh largest travel agent owed more than £7 million in refunds for holidays cancelled on or before 2 December. Although it seems to be paying back customers for the hotel portion of their trips, Which? found evidence that it had not returned the cost of cancelled flights to some of its customers by the deadline.

Some online travel agents have reported difficulties in securing refunds from airlines to pass on to their customers, meaning many people have reported only receiving partial refunds for their cancelled package holidays. 

However, under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Regulations 2018, if a package holiday is cancelled by the provider, the customer is legally entitled to a full refund within 14 days. A package holiday is a combination of at least two types of travel or travel-related services made through the same source in a single booking, most commonly flights and accommodation. 

The commitment made by Lastminute.com to the CMA was to refund all money to customers for both accommodation and flights. 

Sheryl McLeod, one of the customers Which? heard from, told the consumer champion she booked a holiday for two adults and two children to Barcelona for July 2020 through Lastminute.com.

She told Which? that in June an agent from Lastminute.com advised her the flights and hotel were cancelled and there were no alternatives, so the trip would be cancelled and refunded.

Sheryl then heard nothing for months and struggled to speak to someone at Lastminute.com. In September she was told by email that her refund was ready and she accepted the option of a cash refund. For months afterwards Lastminute.com claimed it was finalising her refund. Then, on 27th January, she was sent £932.49 – more than £300 short of the £1274.68 she was owed in total. 

Sheryl tried to chase up this discrepancy over the phone, but she was met with an automated message to log into Lastminute.com to access her booking. When she accessed her account online, the trip was listed under ‘past bookings’, with no mention of the missing money, or anything to help her apply for it.

Claire Barder is another Lastminute.com customer who told Which? she hadn’t received a full refund for her cancelled holiday before the CMA’s deadline.

Despite receiving confirmation of a refund for her cancelled package holiday to Barcelona, which was meant to take place in July 2020, Claire was only given a refund of £431.75 – nearly £600 short as it did not include the flight portion of the trip.

Claire was told in an email that her total refund was worth £1,010.23. However Lastminute.com told her that because of Ryanair’s policy, she would need to fill out a form on the airline’s website to apply for this refund, despite Lastminute.com committing to the CMA that it would be responsible for refunding the total cost of the cancelled holiday.

Only after Which? approached Lastminute.com were both customers told they would receive their money back for the outstanding portions of their refunds.

Which? has shared its findings with the CMA, and is calling for it to take appropriate enforcement action against the online travel agent.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “Despite being given ample time to return all outstanding refunds to customers – as well as clear instructions regarding its liability for refunding both accommodation and flight costs – Lastminute.com has failed to meet this commitment to the regulator.

“This is perhaps unsurprising to its customers, given it was voted the UK’s worst accommodation booking site in our latest survey, faring little better when it was ranked for flight bookings.

“The CMA was right to intervene to demand action from the online travel agent, but after failing some of its customers once again, tougher measures need to be taken. The CMA should uncover how many customers were not refunded in time and take appropriate action against Lastminute.com, sending a clear message that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.”

A spokesperson for Lastminute.com responded: “Firstly we’d like to start by saying that the refund process has been a very complex and difficult process due to the length and severity of the ongoing pandemic and frequent changes in the travel advice rules. These conditions not only impact us but the entire travel industry.

“Throughout this very challenging year, our customers have remained our number one priority, and we at lastminute.com continue our commitment to dedicating our resources to helping them with their requests, whether it’s involuntary or voluntary cancellations, re-booking to new destinations or booking new holidays.

“Each customer request is unique, and often requiring a human touch-point and we’ve been working hard to get the money processed back through the system and into our customer’s pockets as quickly as possible. In the cases you have highlighted, we can confirm that the refund has been sent to the customers also for the flight.”

“We confirm our full commitment and dedication during the last months in order to refund and support all our customers and meet the deadlines agreed with the Competition and Markets Authority. We will discuss our obligations on the 10th of February directly with the Competition and Markets Authority as agreed with them.

“Customer satisfaction is our number one priority and we keep listening and learning even from the feedback generated by a very small number of readers involved in the Which? survey. Every comment counts. We have already refunded more than 49,000 customers and completing any open refunds remains our top priority in these unprecedented crisis.”

A Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) spokesperson said: “CMA action led to lastminute.com committing to pay out over £7m to customers waiting for money back.

“They must now report to us on how they are complying with the commitments they signed up to and the deadlines agreed. Should it become clear that they have breached these undertakings we will consider further action.”

Supermarket convenience store shoppers spend £320 more a year on their groceries

Sainsbury’s Local and Tesco Express customers are paying up to £320 and £280 respectively more a year than those who shop at larger stores for the same items, new Which? analysis has revealed.

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant impact on consumers’ shopping habits, with many people avoiding large supermarkets in favour of shopping online or using convenience stores near their homes.

But while convenience stores have been a lifeline for many people during the pandemic, they are not the most economical way for consumers to shop as prices tend to be higher. 

More than half (51%) of Which? members surveyed who used convenience stores said cost was one of their biggest bugbears.

To determine how much more customers could be spending at supermarket convenience stores compared to their larger stores, the consumer champion analysed the average weekly price of 48 own-label and branded groceries for five months in 2020 across the two largest convenience chains – Sainsbury’s Local and Tesco Express – and compared it with the cost of the same items at their supermarket counterparts.

Which? found customers could be paying 9.5 per cent more a year (£322) at Sainsbury’s Local than they would at a regular Sainsbury’s supermarket.

On average, the shopping list of 48 items, which included Napolina Chopped Tomatoes and McVities Ginger Nut biscuits, cost £71.26 a week at Sainsbury’s Local compared to £65.08 at a Sainsbury’s supermarket – an average weekly difference of £6.18 and £322 annually.

Which? also found Tesco Express customers could be paying 8.4 per cent (£279) more a year compared to those that shop at a larger Tesco supermarket. The shopping basket of 48 items would cost £69.12 at Tesco Express compared to £63.75 at a Tesco supermarket – a difference of £5.37 a week and £279 annually, on average.

At Sainsbury’s the products with the biggest price difference were a 400g can of Napolina Chopped Tomatoes, which was a third more expensive at Sainsbury’s Local, and a 250g packet of McVitie’s Ginger Nut Biscuits, which was just over a quarter pricier at a Sainsbury’s Local store compared to a larger supermarket.

A number of Tesco own-label products were a quarter (23%) more expensive in Express stores than in supermarkets, including Tesco 0% Fat Greek Style Yogurt (500g) and Tesco Orange Juice With Bits, Not From Concentrate (1lt).

In some cases, however, products were the same cost or even a fraction cheaper in the convenience store. For example, a 500ml bottle of Flash spray with bleach was the same price (£1) at Sainsbury’s Local, Tesco Express and the supermarkets, while McVities Digestives were on average 1p cheaper in the smaller stores.

Which? shared its findings with Sainsbury’s and Tesco. Sainsbury’s said that product price is influenced by a variety of factors including special offers, while Tesco said that rents, rates and operating costs are higher in built-up areas.

The use of convenience stores increased during the first lockdown, offering an alternative for those who preferred not to travel or queue for supermarkets and – particularly in the case of local stores that launched delivery services – a lifeline to vulnerable and shielding people.

A Which? members survey found three in five (61%) had shopped at Costcutter between one and three times a month in the eight months after the first nationwide lockdown began in March, compared to less than one in 10 (7%) before the pandemic.

Similarly, one in five (20%) had shopped at a Co-op four to six times a month since spring 2020, compared to just 12 per cent before lockdown.

Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said: “Convenience stores have been a huge help to many of us during the pandemic. However, our research shows that shoppers who rely solely on supermarket convenience stores, rather than their larger stores for their groceries, are paying a premium.

“Customers will generally get more for their money at larger supermarket stores, but for some products, the price difference may not be significant, so it is always worth checking prices to make sure you are getting the best deal.”

Average weekWeek with
greatest difference		Average annual cost
and difference
Sainsbury’s
Main store£65.08£62.85£3,384
Local store£71.26£73.05£3,706
Difference£6.18£10.20£322
Tesco
Main store£63.75£61.96£3,315
Express store£69.12£70.81£3,594
Difference£5.37£8.85£279

A Sainsbury’s spokesperson responded: “We’re committed to offering our customers the best possible value.

“The price of our products is influenced by a range of factors, including promotions which can vary between Sainsbury’s supermarkets and convenience stores.”

A Tesco spokesperson said: “Our Tesco Express stores are mainly in built-up areas where unfortunately rents, rates and the operating costs for these stores are higher.

“The difference in prices of some products reflect these increased costs, but our prices remain competitive as we strive to offer great value to our customers.”

Which? urges banks: commit to cash

Which? is urging the UK’s eight largest retail banks to publicly commit to maintaining cash access for the millions of people in the UK who still rely on it, as its latest analysis shows that 13,000 cash machines have disappeared in just three years.

In a letter to the banks, Which? Chief Executive Anabel Hoult outlines how the coronavirus pandemic has exerted enormous pressure on the cash network, and calls for immediate action to safeguard access to cash to ensure that cash remains a viable payment option.

Which? research last week showed that nearly 10 million people are not ready – or able – to give up cash. However, despite legislation being announced to protect cash for these consumers at last year’s Budget, there is still no timetable in place for its introduction.

The delay has seen what was already a fragile system weakened even further, and last week LINK, the UK’s largest cash machine network, warned that unless action was taken the number of ATMs in the UK could halve in the next two years.

The slow pace of progress towards legislation has created a dangerous vacuum, in which cash machine and bank branch closures continue apace with little scrutiny or oversight to ensure the changes meet the needs of consumers as well as business.

While potential alternatives to mitigate these closures have been proposed, such as cashback without purchase from shops, the speed at which they are being developed and rolled out simply is not quick enough to stem the losses to the existing cash network that show no sign of slowing down.

Since the start of 2020, 3,300 free-to-use cash machines have closed across the UK. The overall number of ATMs in the UK has also fallen by 13,000 in the last three years, falling from 67,300 to 54,400.

In order to prevent yet more damage being inflicted as national restrictions continue, the consumer champion has given firms a two-week deadline to confirm that they will continue membership of two vital industry schemes in the interim period until legislation comes into force, with a regulator in place to ensure that it delivers for cash-reliant consumers.

These voluntary schemes are managed by LINK and the Post Office – both of which currently act as vital guard rails for the UK retail banking system, protecting the viability of cash withdrawal and basic banking services for millions of people. If one of the major retail banks were to withdraw their membership, neither would be viable.

This would mean that LINK’s financial inclusion programme, which is designed to improve access to cash for the most vulnerable and deprived communities, would be under threat, while consumers who live in areas where the Post Office is often the only remaining source for accessing cash would be forced to travel much longer distances to withdraw their money.

Research from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) last year revealed that during the first national lockdown, cash machine closures had already led to tens of thousands of people being cut off from local access to cash.

While these measures will not address all of the problems with the cash network, they are a critically important step in securing the viability of cash until longer-term solutions are agreed and implemented.

Which? is concerned that it will be extremely difficult to reintroduce access to cash in some communities should these voluntary agreements be undermined before legislation is introduced. The consumer champion is urging firms to recognise that a bank’s individual commercial decisions can have a profound impact on the wider cash ecosystem.

As well as this commitment from banks, Which? is also calling on the government to urgently set out its timetable for legislation, and press ahead with giving the FCA the responsibility to oversee the protection of cash in the UK to ensure that it remains a viable payment option as long as people need it.

Which? will provide an update on how banks have responded to our request for continued membership of these schemes once the deadline has passed.

Anabel Hoult, CEO of Which?, said: “Ensuring some of the most vulnerable members of society have the ability to access and spend the cash they rely on to pay for essential goods and services must be a priority for the government, the financial regulator and banks, not an afterthought.

“While there is no doubt that more people than ever are able to benefit from digital banking, that does not detract from the need to provide reasonable access to cash for the millions who need it.

“It is imperative that banks continue to be part of the existing access schemes in place to ensure that the availability of cash is not left to erode even further while legislation is being passed. The government now needs to clarify its timeline for when new laws will actually be in place to protect access to cash.”

Outfoxing the opposition: upstart supplier triumphs in Which?’s annual energy survey

Outfox the Market has knocked Octopus Energy off the top spot in Which?’s annual energy satisfaction survey, while the traditional industry giants languish at the bottom of the rankings yet again.

In a year when millions of people have been living under lockdown and racking up substantial gas and electricity bills, finding a good-value energy supplier that offers excellent customer service has never been more important.

The consumer champion surveyed more than 8,000 people in September 2020 about their experiences with their energy provider across a range of categories including bill accuracy, customer service, complaints handling and value for money.

Outfox the Market, which was founded in 2017, finished at the top of the table, rising from 19th position last year.

The small energy provider frequently offers some of the cheapest deals on the market and received an impressive customer score of 82 per cent, with five-star ratings for billing accuracy and value for money.

It had the highest proportion of customers (93%) that experienced no issues in the last 12 months, but was not named a Which? Recommended Provider as it did not provide enough information on its procedures and was ordered to make its payment into Ofgem’s feed-in tariff scheme.

Following two years at the top, Octopus Energy was second in this year’s satisfaction survey but still achieved an impressive 80 per cent customer score. It is now one of the UK’s largest energy providers, supplying 1.5 million homes, however this rapid growth has not stopped it from keeping customers happy.

Octopus Energy achieved a five-star rating for bill accuracy and four stars for bill clarity, customer service, complaints handling and value for money. For the fourth year in a row, Octopus Energy was also named a Which? Recommended Provider (WRP), along with digital-only challenger Pure Planet for the second year in a row.

Along with excellent customer scores, energy firms must meet additional criteria including no regulatory intervention, with good procedures and performance when it comes to complaints and customer waiting times, to be named a WRP.

Avro Energy rounds off the top three firms, with a respectable 76 per cent customer score. The challenger firm finished in 16th place last year but has made improvements and almost nine in 10 (89%) of its customers said they’ve had no issues in the past 12 months. It received a five-star rating for bill accuracy and four-stars for all other categories including customer service and value for money.

Also among the top energy companies were People’s Energy, Pure Planet, So Energy and Utility Warehouse – and all four impressed customers when it came to billing accuracy and clarity.

The rise of challenger energy companies and major acquisitions has meant the end of the traditional “Big Six” energy companies, but the former giants, excluding SSE (owned by Ovo), still account for more than half of the energy market and continue to score below average in Which?’s satisfaction survey.

These traditional big firms (British Gas, EDF Energy, Eon, Npower and Scottish Power), plus SSE, make up six of the bottom eight energy firms.

Npower was the lowest-ranked energy provider with a customer score of just 54 per cent. While it received three stars for bill accuracy and customer service, customer feedback meant it got two stars for bill clarity and complaints handling and a dismal one-star rating for value for money.

Scottish Power finished second from bottom with a customer score of 55 per cent. It also received a one-star rating for value for money, and just two stars for bill clarity, customer service and complaints handling.

Eon finished third from the bottom, tied with SSE, receiving a customer score of 60 per cent. While it received four stars for bill accuracy and three-stars for customer service, it managed just two stars for value for money.

SSE, which is owned by Ovo, received three stars across most categories but also performed badly when it came to value for money and achieved just one star in this category.

Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said: “Year after year, challenger and small energy companies outperform the traditional providers in our satisfaction survey – delivering better customer service and offering excellent value for money.

“There are impressive energy companies, from small firms such as Outfox the Market to rapidly expanding companies like Octopus Energy, so customers do not have to put up with substandard service from any provider.

“Anyone unhappy with their provider should do their research and consider switching to one that can offer a better experience overall – you could save more than £150 a year.”