Tweet
Tesco, so insensitive to owners of a dead pet
• My dog Rosie, who had been insured with Tesco pet cover for eight years, died in May. I told Tesco, and cancelled the policy. But it continued to ask for a £33.27 June payment - I do not have another dog. Now, I have had several letters from debt collectors, threatening legal action which will add £128 to the bill. They ignore my protests. Please help.
HG, Surrey
Tesco says by the time it received the cancellation, it was too late to prevent the June payment request.
But while it might have acted in accordance with insurance law, it should have more sensitive systems in place to deal with owners of a dead pet. Many pet owners grieve when an elderly animal dies - it may take some days before they tell insurers. Owners may not want to repeat the request to end the plan, as that would replay the anguish.
But when Capital Letters called, Tesco said it understood your pain. It will call off the debt collectors, write off the £33.27, and send £50 compensation for your distress.
What's in a name? Someone else's debt
• I am being chased for the debts of someone of a similar name. This first happened in 2007 when I received demands from NatWest and debt collectors working for the bank. Can you stop this, as it is taking up my time?
FB, London
Yours is not one of the most common surnames, although it is not rare, either. But here the confusion is worse because, besides the fact you live in London and the person chased for the outstanding £2,897 lives in Dorset, you are a woman and the NatWest target is a man. As well as the same initials, you are both called Frankie.
You now know more about your namesake than banking confidentiality would allow, as the bank has sent you several of his letters.
NatWest did call off the collectors last year when you complained, but the tracers who found your address for the bank have apparently passed it on, so you have been hassled again.
NatWest accepts it erroneously linked two customers with exactly the same name and surname, and it failed to deal with it to its own standards once it was aware. It will ensure the mistakes cease, apologise and send you £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
Going round in circles over a roofing bill
• I'm the leaseholder of a flat where housing association Circle Anglia owns the freehold. The lease says it is responsible for 50% of any maintenance fees and I pay the other 50%. In May, I asked permission for a new roof, sending three quotes and identifying my preferred roofer. I was told to go ahead. The £7,000 work was completed in August and I sent the invoice as well as the council's inspection certificate to Circle Anglia. But since then, I have been pushed around the organisation and I am now desperate for the cash. Can you recover my money?
SH, London
You seem to have gone around the entire Circle Anglia staff and ended up where you started without anyone willing to take control and send you its share of your roof bill.
Circle Anglia, which has never disputed it owes you £3,500, said a cheque drawn up in October was not sent due to an administration error.
Since Capital Letters intervened, it has contacted you to apologise for the delay. It has sent your cheque and added £50 compensation to say sorry.
Mobile home holiday didn't go swimmingly
• In July, we went to France for a two-week mobile home holiday with Carisma - a firm we chose because it offered a more personal approach than some of the bigger companies in this market we had tried before. The mobile home was great, as was the site, and the Carisma on-site staff were fantastic. But we felt let down by the brochure promise that "you could step out of your mobile home straight on to a glorious sandy beach" which was "ideal for surfers, body-boarders and sunbathers alike". Instead, what we saw was a somewhat shingly beach with a "swimming forbidden" sign - not helpful when you have children. We have had lengthy correspondence with Carisma but we have got nowhere.
LB, Stockport
Carisma argues the beach is safe for swimming - at least at low tide. It says the sign protects the local council from potential legal actions. Carisma's managing director says he takes his grandchildren in the water at low tide.
You were also told that "at no time in our brochure is it suggested that the beach at the site is safe for swimming".
It seems you should have deduced this from the absence of the word "swimmer" in the description you quoted in your letter. This is difficult and, given the undoubted family appeal of Carisma holidays, you should not have had to work out something from what is left out - its brochure only indicates one west France site with "a beach where children can swim".
Sadly, since you first complained in July, both you and Carisma have hardened positions. But since Capital Letters intervened, Carisma says it will take your views on board for a future brochure and offer you a 10% discount for next year - worth about £200.
A&L took an act of kindness as a bid to launder cash
• We took out an Alliance & Leicester two-year fixed-rate home loan for £130,000 on a flat in mid 2007. As we did not anticipate living there long, we ensured it was portable.
In April, we found a house but as we had to complete rapidly, my partner's boss lent us £142,500 (the full purchase price) as a bridging loan, because we hadn't sold ours yet. A&L confirmed this would be fine - and the original loan could be moved once we exchanged contracts.
We were badly advised by A&L and we lost the chance to "port" the loan. But it got worse - A&L now refuses to let us have any money because of the bridging loan and it will not tell us why. And, it wants £4,500 for early redemption on our first mortgage. Please help.
AC, Hertfordshire
• You had two problems here. Firstly, the bad advice from A&L lost you the portability you valued. The bank admitted this after listening to its tapes. Then it compensated you with a remortgage offer on your new home - even though you had not been there for the six months normally required for this. Then it withdrew this offer.
A&L had become convinced that the loan from your partner's employer was not kindness (or employee retention) on his part, but an attempt to launder money. This was not fully explained to you - the bank used code words such as "risk". You challenged A&L on this but to no avail as it could not admit it suspected the transaction, because doing so would alert the potential launderer.
When Capital Letters became involved attitudes changed. Using common sense, it talked to your solicitor who was willing to give a signed statement on where the money came from and its purpose, so your loan has gone ahead.
A&L will abandon the £4,500 early repayment charge and also send you a hamper as compensation for the hassles of the past few weeks.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More...
