David Elliott was in the process of enjoying a £6.99 wash and wax of his new £75,000 BMW (a bit like this one pictured) at the Morrisons branch in Evesham, Worcestershire.
It was when the back window shattered, that he realised that this wasn’t part of the service.
Part of the car wash mechanism had got snagged the lower edge of the car’s boot. However the safety mechanism that usually kicks in to cut the machine off didn’t work, and the car wash rollers carried on.
When Mr Elliott drove his car out of the machine, he then noticed the full extent of the damage, which he has since been quoted £4,000 to have it fixed.
Now Mr Elliott claims that Morrisons are refusing to accept liability. A claim disputed by the supermarket, who say they have not yet finished their investigation into the incident.
“I called Morrisons customer services immediately telling them what had happened and within a week they had basically denied liability.”
“They didn’t even send somebody to look at my car. The car wash was broken by the incident. But they got an engineer in who presumably just pushed the reset button and said the car wash was fine.”
“Morrisons said to me they didn’t deny that the incident took place but because the car wash was fine beforehand and now the engineer said it’s working, it’s not their liability. They are completely washing their hands of it.”
There’s probably some gag about a company washing their hands of a car wash incident, but now’s not the time. However, next time he wants his car cleaning, he might have more joy if he goes for a good old fashioned hand-job.
So to try and combat that, the Post Office plan to bring forward collection times for 50,000 of them.
Some will have their late collections moved forward to 3pm from the traditional 4pm or later slot.
The rest of the 115,000 post box network will remain unaffected by the change.
Using a statement as their medium, Royal Mail said: “Rather than decommission uneconomic postboxes, while staying within the regulated density requirement, Royal Mail will ensure their viability by improving efficiency of its collections arrangements.”
However, it’s not all doom and gloom, as 2000 new boxes are on their way out into the country, especially in rural areas, as Ofcom ruled that post boxes must be found within half a mile of 98% of UK households.
They chirped in with: “Ofcom recognises the need for Royal Mail to become more efficient so it can sustain a universal postal service that consumers value highly.”
The mid-nineties were dark days. Not just because of Peter Andre and East 17 but also because those were the shady times when building societies forced you to take out their own buildings insurance policies when you had a mortgage with them- at a healthily inflated premium of course.
But in the face of a sledgehammer of legislation to tackle the problem, the practice was dropped, and in today’s more enlightened times, new buyers are free to shop around, using any one of the multiple comparison sites around to secure the best deal on home insurance.
However, there is still an issue for homeowners. Last month comparethemarket.com (the one with the rodents) calculated that, for the‘significant number ‘of people, who have not switched since taking out their home insurance under sufferance through their original lender, they could have saved ‘legacy losses’ totalling around £2.2bn – an average of £1,446 per household over the last 20 years.
Additionally, the cheeky anthropomorphic creatures discovered that some building societies, mostly smaller regional ones, are still levying a penalty charge of up to £45 if you choose not to take out their overpriced insurance.s
Sounds a bit rum. Of course, the building societies can’t actually charge you for not buying their products, that would be madness. What they can do, however, is charge you an administration fee for requiring sight of your alternative insurance provider to ensure that it is, in fact, bona fide. Unlike the admin charge itself.
The comparethemarket.com research found Ipswich building society to be the worst offender in a list of 18 lenders which charge home buyers for daring to choose a cheaper insurance provider.Ipswich charges £45, but out of the other charging lenders, the largest is Skipton, which charges £25.
Simon McCulloch of comparethemarket.com said, based on the mortgage and remortgage market share of those lenders that impose a fee, consumers are collectively paying nearly £2m a year for these charges.
“These charges are essentially a tax on being financially proactive and prudent,” he said. “Shopping around for buildings and contents insurance saves a third of UK households more than £100, which could, for example, pay for your first six months broadband after you move house. But charges like these are designed to put people off doing this and, in many instances, to tie them into more expensive products.”
A spokesman for the Ipswich said: “The society has recently conducted a review of the ‘own insurance’ mortgage fee. The result of this is that we intend to remove this fee for all applications from 1 September 2014.”
A Skipton spokesman said: “There is a charge we make to ensure that if someone buys their buildings insurance elsewhere, we need to check that the property is properly insured.”
And yes, I know they are mammals.
Californian Douglas Ladore is taking Sony to court as he reckons they falsely advertised the native resolution of the multiplayer mode in Killzone Shadow Fall as 1080p
Mr Ladore boo-hoos that Sony is guilty of, “negligent misrepresentation, false advertisement, unfair competition and fraud in the inducement” for various claims from the company that a ‘native’ 1080p resolution was present in the game’s multiplayer.
Going on to shade them with “Unfortunately, Sony’s marketing and on-box representations turned out to be nothing more than fiction.”
Sony have always said that Killzone Shadow Fall runs at native 1080 and 60fps in both its single and multiplayer modes. However the game actually uses a thing called ‘temporal reprojection’ to achieve this 1080p image from a lower resolution render.
This ‘temporal reprojection’ lark tracks the position of pixels and manages to predict where they’ll be to form a higher-resolution new frame.
Obviously Ladore is having none of it, claiming how this is more a “technological shortcut” rather than an actual native to the game as he claims advertised.
There’s getting upset about something and then there’s going through the process of thinking “yes, I’m going to sue this company for their LIES” and then doing so.
Some people eh? They need to go outside and have a minute.
The design, for Dirty Bird, who ply their wares around festivals and dos around Wales, has been deemed phallic and ‘not the sort of thing that should be on display around children’.
Cleverly, the design combines both the ‘d’ and the ‘b’ of Dirty Bird, and helps form the base and main throbbing shaft of the cock itself.
Along with a head and comb placed at the tip, it is quite evident that the rooster represents a delicious range of chicken.
But the customers aren’t having it with clever design. Claiming that clever design is not the sort of thing they want to see or think about when tucking into their fried chicken, because the clever design looks quite a bit like a penis.
Now, Bitterwallet have seen a fair share of penises in our time (Speak for yourself – Ed) but none, if any, had a beak.
Dirty Bird owner Neil Young (not that one) has denied the company tried to make the logo phallic, saying: “We’ve never really thought about it like that. Our designer created a d and b for “dirty bird” then pushed them together to make a cockerel.”
They’ve also done some giant posters with stuff like “Touch My Thigh” and “Touch My Breast” on them, which again has alarmed some people with no sense of humour.
We particularly enjoyed the typesetting of the “Eat Cock” poster.
Mark James, who designed the logo, said: “We were given the name Dirty Bird as the brief, and started working on ideas. We looked at the initials, DB. Then worked with the lowercase ‘db’ linking them to form the shape of a rooster. It’s graphic representation of a rooster incorporating the initials. It depends on how you look at it.”
“I’m not sure there have been any complaints. A few comments, but it’s in the eye of the beholder, as they say.”
According to the industry, shop prices were an average of 1.9% below the same month last year. This is the biggest fall in years.
It’s all good for people who’ve been facing price rises overtaking wages, throwing everyone into varying levels of financial despair.
According to the British Retail Consortium (BRC), food prices are rising at 0.3% a year, which apparently is the lowest figure ever seen in the survey.
It claims that, what with discounting, vouchers and general deals, the cost of getting food on the table is actually down. Yeah, but, it really couldn’t have continued going up though, eh?
Clothes and shoes were an average of 11.2% cheaper in July than a year ago as clothes shops waged an actual war on each other. All your electrical bits and bobs like tellies, mobile phones, computers and that sort of thing were on average 5% cheaper.
The director general of the BRC, Helen Dickson reckons: “This is great news for households who are benefiting from fierce competition within the industry at a time when disposable incomes remain under pressure. The lowest ever recorded food inflation will be particularly welcomed by the lowest income households who typically spend around a third of their expenditure on food”.
“Deep and widespread discounting across the grocery sector is intensifying with prices falling almost one per cent month-on-month – another record jump. After accounting for the use of multi-buys and vouchers, food prices are falling.”
It looks set to continue, too, as harvests around the world have been quite good, things are stable, imports are cheaper and all that.
Proposed reforms to the way claims are paid out could wipe out businesses and homeowners financially, according to some insurers.
Following the rioting of Summer 2011, where disaffected youths rose up and acquired free rice and sportswear, around £167 million has been believed to have been paid out to people and companies who were affected by it, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
However the ABI say that plans to overhaul the 128-year-old Riot Damages Act could threaten insurers’ ability to cover such damage in England and Wales as a standard part of property insurance.
It said the proposals could reduce access to insurance and potentially lead to new excesses for riots having to be built into some policies and riots having to be excluded completely from cover in certain areas.
The ABI estimates that for every £10 paid out in compensation after the 2011 rioting, only £1 would be paid out under the reformed Act, which whatever way you look at it, is a bit shit.
It also warned that proposals to put new curbs on the Act would leave “all but the smallest firms unable to claim compensation”, while car owners could find that the vast majority of vehicle damage is also excluded.
The ABI said that a proposal to limit those businesses who can make a claim to the police under the Act to those with an annual turnover of less than £2 million would leave all but the smallest firms unable to claim. Firms with a turnover of less than £2 million made up only 9% of the total value of commercial property material damage claims in the 2011 riots.
It also said that proposals to only include third party motor policies within claims to the police under the Act would leave a vast majority of motorists outside it. Around 96% of motorists have comprehensive cover rather than third party.
The ABI also shaded the idea that police and crime commissioners to decide whether a riot is actually a riot, and not just ‘lots of people running about smashing stuff up and burning things’ would also create potential conflicts of interest as the police are liable for riot damage.
There’s a guy named Huw Evans, who is director of policy and deputy director general at the ABI, and he has said this: “Government proposals to drastically cut back compensation are at odds with its intention to retain the principle that the state is responsible for the costs of riot damage, that has proved its worth for taxpayers for over 100 years.”
“Not only does the Act provide important protection for the uninsured, it means insurers can cover riot damage in England and Wales as a standard part of property insurance.”
“Both would be in jeopardy under Government’s new proposals, which instead need to reflect today’s world and the needs of modern businesses.”
“Insurers want to continue to offer riot cover as a standard part of property insurance, but such drastic change could significantly impact on premiums, lead to the incorporation of excesses for riot into business insurance policies, or the exclusion of riot from insurance cover in certain areas.”
Meanwhile, a Home Office spokeswoman piped up with: “Small and medium-sized businesses are at the heart of their communities and it is right that the Government supports them when they suffer unexpected loss or damages.
“The Riot Damages Act is over 125 years old and needs updating. Its purpose is to provide a safety net for businesses and individuals – our recent consultation provided an opportunity to ensure it meets the needs of any future compensation claims.
“Interested parties, including the Association of British Insurers, were invited to comment and provide data to inform the consultation.
“No final decisions have been taken on changes to the Act. We will now consider responses to the consultation and will decide which proposals to take forward in due course.”
What a mess, eh reader?
Only 15.2 million sq ft of new shopping space was proposed by retailers, rather than the 18 million sq ft four years ago, when colossal outta town stores were seen as the future.
However, since facing a ramming at the tills from the likes of Lidl and Aldi, the big four supermarkets are less inclined to carry on building giant sheds
The figures from property agent CBRE also show the amount of new shopping space with planning permission and under construction fell 30% on the year to 2.5 million sq ft, with retailers scaling down their sites to meet changing customer habits.
CBRE retail director Christopher Keen said of this: “The reason for the shift to smaller stores is in part a response to changing consumer shopping patterns, but also because they are lower capital expenditure to deliver, have less impact on the trade of existing stores and are easier to secure planning permission for.”
Even if it looks as though supermarkets are no longer keen on massive new stores, there is still 30 million sq ft of space allocated and with permission to become shops.
Tesco said last month that it was going to build up to 4,000 homes on the land it had its eye on, after being nagged at for hoarding land for the sake of it.
It’s a shame for the land gobbling behemoths of retail, eh?
Google have been relatively open about how they scan everyone’s emails – it is so they can tailor adverts to customers and make loads of money. However, not everyone is happy about that, especially with all that NSA business.
However, reports say that a Google tip-off from the contents of a Gmail account ended up in the arrest of a child abuser from Texas. Police say Google told the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) about the content in an email sent by John Henry Skillern, who is a registered sex offender.
“He was trying to get around getting caught, he was trying to keep it inside his email,” said Detective David Nettles. “I can’t see that information, I can’t see that photo, but Google can.”
So what’s going on?
Pictures are hashed which creates a unique code for an image. The hash is compared with a database of known child abuse images and, if they match, details are passed to the NCMEC (or, if you’re in Britain, the Internet Watch Foundation, who Google actually give funding to). Then, a trained expert looks at the case and decides whether or not to pass it on to the police.
AOL also employ a similar system and they caught someone sharing illegal images last year.
The moral quandary is that, while the capture of child abusers is absolutely good and noble, Google and others are sifting through everyone’s correspondence and repacking it for advertisers. With Google’s buying of Nest, some people even think that they’ll be able to spy on you via your thermostat (a bit like the Piers Brosnan robot house in The Simpsons).
So what’s the trade off? If you’re not doing anything wrong, should people be scanning your emails? Do you not mind because child abusers can be caught? Is this case being crowed about in a bid to try and distract users from something a bit dodgy going on? Or do we just accept it because this is how the internet works?
Independent figures claim to show droves of households switching their energy supplier as the price of energy carries on going up.
Approximately 100,000 customers a month have swapped over from the big boys to an indie since last June. Snubbing the likes of npower, SSE, EDF, E.ON, Scottish Power and British Gas.
And according to the latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, 1.3 million customers and 866,000 gas customers have changed suppliers in the last three months of 2013.
And as if to rub it in, by switching his gas and electricity supplier to a company exempt from the charges slapped on domestic bills, Energy Secretary Ed Davey is now spared from paying the average £112-a-year green duty added to most domestic bills after he moved his account to a firm that does not have to pay it.
Maybe he should be doing something about stopping the Big Six being arseholes then, eh readers?
From October 1, anything that might contain unsuitable content for the nippers, will be given a rating of 12, 15, 18 or R18.
This will cover stuff released on Blu-Ray, DVD and CD formats. So for example, if Rihanna finally sees sense and knocks out a Greatest Hits this Christmas, an accompanying video compilation would be rated maybe 15 due to her clothes constantly falling off in the promos of her less memorable numbers.
If it is judged that content in a video would typically attract an age rating of 12, 15, 18 or R18, the BBFC will issue a certification.
Companies producing any contentious physical content will have to submit it for classification, and thus add another week or so into production while they wait for it to be issued like a passport.
While this is all noble and stops us from throwing filth at the pop kids, it doesn’t apply to content bought digitally, and so what’s left of the physical market is sort-of shooting itself in the foot a bit by placing restrictions. Admittedly, gone are the days when there were HMVs and Virgins and vigilant staff. Nowadays, what avenues are left are grateful of any sale, and are not going to prevent a 12 year old buying something labelled an 18.
Plus all of it’s on YouTube, and unless your parents are complete squares, you can bore yourself silly watching this stuff millions of times.
CEO Sam Laidlaw has been laying into Ofgem, saying that their estimate for the amount of profit BG stand to make from the average household this coming year (£106) is wrong.
He said it’s actually closer to £40 – 20% down on last year – and got very shirty indeed. It also didn’t appear to be making any moves to cut energy tariffs. WHAT A SURPRISE.
Laidlaw stroked his Arctic fox trimmed lapels, turned over in his bath of Cristal and said:
The Ofgem analysis is a theoretical analysis. What we are actually publishing today is the actual facts. We have been in discussions with Ofgem for a number of years about this methodology, which has its deficiencies and they recognise that it needs to be changed.’
But quibbling over Ofgem’s calculations doesn’t alter the fact that the warm weather was to blame for their slide in profits, and that they still have a responsibility to lower their prices so that customers don’t end up overpaying and in penury as a result.
Ricardo Lloyd from Which! issued his usual robotic statement, but it doesn’t look like anyone at BG will be listening. He said:
‘British Gas profits are down because of a warm winter, not lower prices.Energy companies must do everything they can to pass on any savings to their customers including falling wholesale and network costs.’
Shadow energy minister Jonathan Reynolds said that the energy market wasn’t working and added:
‘Britain’s hard-pressed bill-payers have seen their energy bills rocket, despite falling wholesale costs, while David Cameron sits on his hands and repeatedly fails to stand up to the big energy companies.’
The results of this CMA profits investigation can’t come soon enough, eh?
Well, many broadband customers are being hit with punishing and cruel fees of up to £625 for cancelling contracts – and it’s not clear what these fees are actually for.
Citizens Advice have said that customers have complained of being charged cancellation fees which average at around £190, and if they don’t pay up, they get debt collecting agencies on their tails.
Some people have complained of broadband so slow that they’ve had to use internet cafes instead, and some customers have connections that have stopped working completely.
Faulty wifi, bad customer service and glacially slow loading speeds are legitimate reasons to cancel, but try to get out early, and you get penalised. According to Citizen’s Advice, one woman was charged an unbelievable £625 when she tried to leave.
CA has called for Internet providers to stop putting people in broadband jail and let people escape a lousy service mid contract. CEO Gillian Guy said:
‘Internet service providers must not shackle customers seeking a better service with unreasonable fees that can turn into shock debt. All internet users need to be able to easily have a way out of inadequate contracts and broadband speeds that only give them daily frustration.’
Until, then, though – unless you’ve got a few hundred quid handy, it looks like you’re locked into your poor service until the end of your contract.
*Mournful sounds of a dial up modem*
Last year we all discovered that sometimes things lurk in our food, or in some cases, replace our food entirely (Findus Lasagne anyone?) Of course, unidentifiable meat in processed products will always contain an element of risk, but you can’t get more risk-free than a salad can you? There’s nowhere for any nasties to hide. Or so you’d think. New research from the Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) shows that some ‘healthy’ high street salads contain more salt than two and a half Big Macs.
CASH surveyed 650 ready-to-eat salads available for purchase from supermarkets, restaurants, cafés and fast food restaurants and found almost four out of five, 511 products, contained more salt than a packet of crisps (0.5g/portion).
Of the eating out salads:
Pizza Express’ ‘Grand Chicken Caesar Salad’ contains an astonishing 5.3g salt/serving, the equivalent of two and a half Big Macs, which is almost a whole days’ worth of salt (6g) in just one meal.
Pizza Express’ ‘Warm Vegetable & Goats Cheese Salad’ containing 5g salt/serving – four fifths (83%) of the maximum recommended daily intake.
Wagamama’s ‘Lobster Super Salad’ contains 4.5g salt/serving – three quarters (75%) of your salt limit for the day in just one meal.
Nando’s ‘Mediterranean Salad with Chicken Breast’ sounds healthy, purely by dint of including the word ‘Mediterranean’ but still contains a whopping 4g salt/serving.
A McDonald’s ‘Crispy Chicken & Bacon Salad’ has MORE salt (1.3g vs 1.2g), fat (19g vs 8g) and calories (380kcal vs 250kcal) per portion than a McDonald’s Hamburger. Although why anyone would expect to see a vegetable in a McDonald’s anything is the bigger mystery.
Of the supermarket salads, examples of those with the largest amount of salt/serving include:
Morrisons ‘Chicken & Bacon Pasta Salad’ 2.8g salt/290g serving
Marks & Spencer ‘Chicken, Bacon & Sweetcorn Pasta Salad’ 2.58g salt/380g serving
Boots ‘Delicious Simply Tuna & Sweetcorn Pasta Salad’ 2.25g salt/300g serving
John West ‘Light Lunch Moroccan Style Salmon Salad’ 2.2g salt/220g serving
CASH found that, despite what you might otherwise think, over one in ten (15%) salads would get a red (high) colour for salt, and two thirds (69%) would receive an amber (medium) colour.
Victoria Taylor, Senior Dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, says: “It’s not unreasonable to think that if you pick a salad it’s going to be a healthy choice. But this survey shows in some cases what you see might not always be what you get. A colourful salad full of vegetables may look like a healthy way towards your 5-a-day but what you can’t see is the salt content which, in some cases, could amount to almost a whole day’s worth in one portion.”
Sonia Pombo, a nutritionist at CASH added her cheery two penneth, “Say the word ‘salad’ and you tend to imagine a bowl of healthy stuff nestled amongst some leaves, but…food manufacturers and restaurants continue to add unnecessary salt to the dish, which not only alters the taste and makes you feel bloated, but more seriously, can lead to high blood pressure – the main cause of strokes and heart attacks.”
If salt intake is a concern for you, or even if it’s not, CASH have developed a free app that can analyse the salt content of packaged food and suggest lower-salt alternatives. You download the Foodswitch app and use the SaltSwitch function to scan the barcode. And you might not have a heart attack.