To get this back on topic, I'll give some friendly advice on the original queries raised...
Firstly, many people do refer to the quoted manufacturer economy figures and expect to achieve these in real world conditions. The catch here is that manufacturers create optimum conditions (constant ideal temperature, constant speed, distance etc) so that scientifically at least, they produce a fair test which is comparable across brands. Due to the controlled nature of these tests, many people will struggle to achieve these quoted figures.
With regards to your car, I don't think there are any issues with it, it just needs to be driven a bit more and properly bedded in so that all the components begin to work efficiently. Autos have traditionally been thirstier than their manual equivalents, but as technology develops, this has been seen less and less - I work in the industry and have experience with both Peugeot's EGC gearbox and VW group's DSG/S-tronic gearbox which are just as efficient (if not more) than their manual cousins - Powershift is Ford's version of this very same technology.
It's also worth mentioning that while the trip computer is a good indicator of your economy, it might be a good idea to calculate the MPG for a few fill ups and see how different your workings are from the car's read-out.
Hope that helps
Some nice common sense advice and info - thanks James. The only plus point of the "automated manual" box I experienced (won't mention the manufacturer again !) was that the actual mpg figures I achieved were as good as the manual manufacturer-quoted figures proving that auto technology can work economy-wise.
Some of us also choose an auto because we prefer them to drive, chaps. Just as we are free to choose any other option to suit oiur tastes !