Camera club framed over energy bill

I initially called the council, which said it could not help because it gets electricity as part of a deal with Kent County Council, and this is handled by another organisation called Laser Billing. I found out that the actual electricity supplier was Npower, which is now part of E.on, and that’s where the situation has gone beyond belief.

E.on asked me for details of the account, which I supplied. Then it asked for more details and a photo of the electricity meter, which I supplied. E.on asked for a copy of the latest electricity invoice, which I supplied, at which point it asked for a picture of the electricity meter again. I then raised a complaint, and was asked for a photo of the meter for a third time.

I can’t help wondering if this is some sort of game?

Jill replies

E.on’s “energy specialist” dealing with your questions was struggling to find the camera club’s account, saying the meter number you had sent did not match the address you provided. No wonder, as your club pays the council for its electricity, and it was the council that had an account with E.on, not the club.

I asked the council to look at your complaint again. Initially it said that to qualify for the reduced rate on fuel and power supplies, your premises must be for charity non-business use. “The Camera Club is not a registered charity and the charging of membership fees and hire of its facilities to members is considered to be a business use,” it said. “As the supplier of electricity, we must take reasonable steps to check the validity of any application for the reduced rate, and to date we have not received sufficient evidence for this.”

I replied, pointing out that the club’s electricity usage was well below 1,000 kWh each month, which also entitles it to pay VAT at the reduced rate of 5 per cent. In the cold winter period from November 2018 to February 2019, when the club was last able to operate normally, it used 1,495kWh.

Somewhat surprisingly, given that it issues bills to the club and therefore should know how much electricity it is using, the council said this was the first time you had mentioned low usage: “We can apply the reduced rate going forward based on the declaration provided from Camera Club about energy usage and will look at backdating this up to four years (dependent on a review of the energy bills).”

The club has paid £3,150 for electricity during the past four years, so the club will be entitled to a refund of £393.86, in addition to the continuing reduced VAT rate.

Big fat fail from Fabb

My wife and I ordered a superking mattress and topper from the Canterbury store of Fabb furniture in June last year for more than a thousand pounds.

The mattress proved to be unfit for purpose, rolling my wife to the outside edge and causing severe discomfort with neck and back pain. Nevertheless, we persevered for a couple of weeks.

We complained in person on August 17 to the store manager by handing a letter to him. He faxed it to “customer support” who acknowledged receipt the same day. They arranged for an inspection by Homeserve Furniture Repairs on September 14.

The inspector who attended was young and seemed inexperienced. He stated from the outset he would be unable to “condemn” the item, and could not explain its construction and did not remove or open its zipped cover. He reported direct to Fabb, which had paid his fee, that he could find no fault.

I tried to call Fabb on September 24 speaking to an agent who said the report did not support our case, refused to talk further and hung up. I contacted Trading Standards, and in response received some generic information from Citizens Advice.

We had a guarantee from the manufacturer, the Foam Company, which offers an independent expert survey in the event that a purchaser of one of their products has a problem where the retailer did not cooperate.

I sent a copy of the Homeserve report to the Foam Company. It expressed surprise that the cover had not been removed or opened by the inspector and offered to commission a second inspection if we paid a £60 fee, which would be refundable if fault was found.

This we did and the second inspection took place on November 17. The inspection was again carried out by Homeserve. Having removed the zipped cover, the inspector found that the foam on the faulty side of the mattress had splits in it, and that the topper cover had a propensity to roll the user to the outside edge.

The Foam Company agreed that the product was faulty and agreed to replace it free of charge, but we were disgusted at our treatment by Fabb and decided that we would press for a full refund from the retailer. The original Fabb agent who handled our complaint called on December 16 to advise that Fabb’s policy was “no refunds only replacement”.

I held out for a cash refund and asked her to write to me spelling out where in the retailer’s terms of business this was stated. I cannot find it. I am also aware of the Consumer Credit Act terms, which I believe provide for a full refund if a complaint is raised within 30 days.

Please can you help us to obtain a cash refund from Fabb Furniture?

Jill replies

You complained to the retailer about the mattress within 30 days of it being delivered, so if the first inspector had removed the zip-on cover revealing the tears in the foam, you would automatically have been entitled to a full refund according to the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. You did not press for a refund initially, intending to accept a replacement mattress instead, but you were so cross at the way your complaint had been handled by Fabb that you turned down the offer of a replacement mattress from the Foam Company. Instead the offending mattress was covered in a mattress bag and relegated to a spare bedroom, while you moved your old single mattresses back on to your bed base until this problem was sorted out.

I reminded Fabb about your consumer rights and the fact that the Foam Company supported your claim, and asked it to refund you straight away.

It insisted that the first technician to inspect the mattress was an experienced furniture specialist who carried out a comprehensive inspection of the mattress: “The inspectors are used to carrying out an inspection without the ability to unzip the cover, it is rare for a mattress to have a cover that can be unzipped.”

Maybe, but surely if you can unzip the cover to take a good look at what is going on underneath, it would be sensible to do so?

Fabb accepted that the second technician found physical damage to the mattress that was affecting its performance. “As this was a separate issue to what we had originally inspected the mattress for, we offered a like-for-like replacement or the option to come into store to select an alternative mattress,” it said.

I’m not sure how this was a separate issue, and you wanted a refund, not a replacement. Fabb has now collected the faulty mattress and refunded you the full £1,348 you paid, including the £80 you paid for the mattress topper and £69 for delivery.

Can we help you?

Please email your questions to Jill Insley at questionofmoney@sundaytimes.co.uk or write to Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF. Please send only copies of original documents. Advice is offered without legal responsibility. We regret Jill cannot reply to everyone who contacts her.