Seeing red over Orange

RM writes: I have been a satisfied customer of Orange for many years but I recently moved to a new home where there is no Orange coverage. Its technical team admitted this and that there is no chance of this changing in the near future. However, its customer services department, to whom I have spoken on many occasions, refuses to listen. When I eventually wrote to the company, its reply, received last week, beggars belief. It said: “Orange is a mobile phone company and we offer a mobile service; we do not guarantee coverage in a building.” Where else would I want to use its broadband? I currently have 15 months to go on this useless contract that will cost £600 for absolutely nothing.

This is stupid. It seems to me that if a company cannot provide the service it sets itself out to, and admits the fact, then it should automatically rescind the contract, particularly where, as in your case, the failure resulted from a house move and was therefore completely outside your control.

Orange has, if belatedly, agreed to cancel the contract with a month’s notice. Whether this was down to you or me, I don’t know — your husband told me that he had to get “quite belligerent” in order to achieve this. Orange will only tell me, airily, that “the problem has been resolved”.

Ofcom, the regulator for telecoms, says that new rules, which came into force last month, should help where, for example, a customer signs up after being told that coverage is good in that area when it is in fact bad or non-existent. These rules replace a voluntary code of practice and Ofcom now has the power to fine companies that disobey them. It says that it estimates the “current ongoing value of financial harm” to consumers from general mis-selling at £21m a year. Unfortunately, there is nothing specific in the rules about RM’s position, where the lack of coverage results from a house move. I hope this can be remedied next time the rules are reviewed.

ES had a similar problem, this time with the 3 network. The crunch came when her 15-year-old daughter was robbed and assaulted, and the police were unable to get in touch with her because of the network problems. She had been trying for months to get the company to cancel her contracts without penalty. Following my intervention, this has now been done, the company accepting that its records showed that her calls do not connect.

Bedding-in woes continue at B&B

GW writes: My Bradford & Bingley bond matured four months ago. I asked for the capital sum to be reinvested in a further bond with the accrued interest directed to an instant-access account. However, I am having great difficulty in obtaining satisfaction. Can you advise what more I can do?

Letters such as this are a distressingly common feature of the Question of Money postbag. Usually, as in your case, readers have tried their hardest to sort out the problem and are simply stumped for “what more they can do”.

The new bond was opened — albeit with an 11-day delay — but for the wrong sum. Although this was eventually remedied, you never received your certificate. The central admin section of the bank was busy corresponding with the Abbey branch in the town where you lived, unaware that there was a Bradford & Bingley branch there, too — the one with which you had been dealing.

It will inevitably take a while for parent company Santander to bed down its acquisition of the savings side of B&B into its main business. Problems are bound to arise but four months is frankly too long to get them sorted out.

Now you have the certificate for the correct sum, the interest from the matured bond has been credited to the account you requested and you have been offered £103, comprising interest for the delay in opening the replacement bond, plus £70 as goodwill.

No snap decision with Currys

MM writes: We bought a camera from Currys for £119, which became faulty last year. As we had bought a Coverplan on purchase, we returned it in its original box with all accessories to the store for repair. In due course it was returned — but only the camera, none of the accessories. It appears the original form detailing the repair did not include the fact that everything else was returned at the same time. It’s useless without the accessories. The store has refused to help, saying we have no case.

Too right you don’t: no case, no charger, no means to download the photos — in fact nothing at all except this now pointless camera. You battled for 14 months with customer services, with no success. To be fair, Currys head office was thoroughly embarrassed when I ran this scenario past it. “We’re just sorry we didn’t grasp the nettle sooner and resolve the issue once and for all,” said a spokesman. As you have since bought a new camera, Currys has agreed to refund you the full cost.

Tax penalty on mortgage deal

IM writes: My daughter has recently sold a buy-to-let flat and has been told by HM Revenue & Customs that, while expenses such as estate agent and solicitor fees may be deducted from the gain before charging tax, the mortgage redemption penalty, which amounts to more than £3,300, is not allowed. Is HMRC correct?

HMRC is the final arbiter of what’s allowed and what is not, rather than Question of Money, but I can confirm that the person your daughter was dealing with was interpreting the tax rules correctly.

NatWest changes line over railcard

HT writes: Can you persuade NatWest that my student daughter is entitled to a railcard?

Your daughter opened a student account with NatWest last September and therefore qualified for this card, but as she already had a one-year 16-25 railcard she thought she could apply for it when the existing one ran out last month. NatWest said sternly: “It is very clear in the student pack that there is a December cut-off date for rail card application.” Still, it has relented and your daughter will now get the card.

British Gas hits the wrong target

PO writes: Please help me with a serious problem I am having with British Gas. It is harassing me by wrongly sending demands for payment of £536, even though we moved to Southern Electric for the supply of gas in September 2007, and settled all monies due to British Gas.

You had trouble enough at the time you moved, which took three months to sort out, as it transpired that your payments to British Gas had been credited to your next-door neighbour’s account, and you had to wade through threats of disconnection and of visits by bailiffs. That was eventually sorted out. You put that behind you — only for it to start up again this year, with demands that you pay your neighbour’s gas bill.

The original culprit was the National Supply Database of customers’ names and addresses, from which British Gas, along with all other suppliers, takes its details. This was wrong. Your neighbour was shown with your address. British Gas has now corrected its records and passed on the details to the database. It has assured you that you will not receive any more bills, that you do not owe anything, and it is apologising and offering you a £50 gesture of goodwill.