On May 20 I underwent a heart procedure using my company’s Bupa cover. The operation took place at 5.30pm at the Bristol Heart Institute because the private Spire Hospital did not have the necessary facilities, and I was to spend the recovery night in a private hospital a couple of miles away.
An ambulance was booked for 7.30pm to carry out the transfer, but because the procedure took longer than expected, the consultant did not release me until about 9.15pm.
The ambulance company has now invoiced for £230, which includes a charge for additional waiting time, but Bupa will contribute only £80, which it says is the limit of its coverage. What should the consultant have done? Stopped the operation because the ambulance was waiting outside?
Bupa has been contacted on several occasions by me and my company’s broker, but it refuses to contribute further. Can you help?
Phil David, Bristol
Advertisement
Your case sounds like something you would be more likely to hear about in the US, doesn’t it? Troubleshooter was not aware that such a monetised approach to emergency health treatments had been adopted in the UK. You would think that private health insurers, with their extensive expertise, would have a bit of flexibility built in to the time limits for things as complicated as heart operations.
Bupa blamed your employer for the harsh upper limit on ambulance fees. It chose that policy for its staff. But Bupa, too, can be blamed for offering this as a policy option in the first place. Exclusions on insurance policies might cut the cost to whoever is paying for it, but they can be taken too far. An £80 limit for ambulance fees counts as too far, in Troubleshooter’s book.
Someone whose condition is so critical that they need an ambulance should not have to deal with the added stress of fees that they were not expecting to pay. Bupa agreed after Troubleshooter intervened and has written off your bill, recognising that “the circumstances were beyond your control” and it apologised for the problems that you encountered in trying to sort this out.
I requested a new debit card from Barclays back in July — I had left my card in a restaurant and had requested a temporary block on it. After it had been returned to me, the bank advised me to order a new one to be on the safe side.
It is now August 28 and I am still waiting for the card. First, I was told that there was an issue with my address — I had changed the address where the card is registered several months ago and somehow this had made them very confused — then someone put a “gone away marker” on my account.
Advertisement
Every week I call and am told that they are incredibly sorry and that I will receive the card within “five to seven working days”.
Barclays has agreed to pay £50 compensation because I have to use my credit card to withdraw cash. After another two weeks of waiting, I asked for more money and was offered another £100. I don’t think this is adequate. The bank now says that my card will arrive by September 8 at the latest — eight weeks after I ordered it.
Liz Harris, London
Delays to secure deliveries of credit cards is one of Troubleshooter’s personal bugbears. The delivery companies are infuriatingly inflexible on time and location for delivery, and seemingly do not take into account factors such as someone being at work during the day, which means that, in some cases, the sending of a card can take months to organise, rather than weeks. This was not the reason for the delay in your case, however. Your delay was caused by that old favourite: the simple administrative error.
Barclays would not budge on its original offer after Troubleshooter called, stating that it thinks the £150 was fair. It apologised for the error that resulted in the rather extreme delay in getting your delivery back on track, but pointed out that you had not informed the bank that you had moved address in the first place. The “gone away” note that they put on accounts is apparently a security measure until the customer contacts the bank. Compensation of £150 sounds fair to Troubleshooter.
Advertisement
I moved house recently and asked BT to redirect calls from my old phone number to my new house. The phone number is for my wife’s hypnotherapy business, so it is very important that clients can continue to get in touch. However, BT keeps redirecting the wrong phone number and despite numerous complaints we are still not receiving calls. My wife’s business is suffering and I am at my wits’ end. Even a friend who works for BT has so far been unable to sort it all out.
Robert Gower, Norfolk
Unbelievably, after Troubleshooter first rang BT, it cut off your old number altogether. It is particularly frustrating because you requested this call redirect several weeks before moving, and you will be charged £33 a quarter for the service.
After more chasing from Troubleshooter, BT fixed the problem and your old number is now giving out a message to redirect callers. It has also agreed to “look into the possibility of compensation”. Troubleshooter would expect the first charge to be waived and at least £50 for all the inconvenience, as well as damage to your wife’s business.
Readers to the rescue
Advertisement
“I think I should sign up to a green energy tariff as I’m feeling guilty about my carbon footprint. However, it will cost significantly more than I am paying now and I will probably have to cancel my monthly direct debit to Oxfam. Is it worth the sacrifice?”
Claire Slater
Signing up for a green tariff may make you feel better, but cutting down on the amount you consume is better for your carbon footprint. Look at how to reduce the energy your house uses, turn off lights in empty rooms, don’t leave items on standby, use energy-saving lightbulbs and make sure your home is properly insulated. You may well find that you save enough money to switch to the green energy tariff and still give to Oxfam. If not, you will have done your bit and can rest easy.
Tim Gardner, £25 voucher winner
Global warming causes half the problems Oxfam has to deal with. Your choice is to switch to a green supplier, and fight the root cause, or support Oxfam to deal with the consequences. I suggest that you buy a big jumper from an Oxfam shop and turn down your thermostat. Then you could probably afford to do both.
Advertisement
Mark Benedict
Stick with your current energy tariff and give the saving to an environmental charity. To reduce your carbon footprint, eat less meat — if we all did this, carbon emissions would be significantly lower.
Helen Clegg
Is there any such thing as a green energy tariff? A recent BBC documentary showed that EDF’s Eco 2020 tariff wasn’t green in any way, merely resulting in the customer receiving tips to reduce carbon footprint. Stick with Oxfam.
Mike Morris
Instead of a green tariff, why not purchase carbon offsets instead? You can use them to offset your energy use based on sophisticated calculators. That way the money goes into projects that you believe in and you have more of a say.
Jessica Maki
There are better ways to reduce and offset your carbon footprint than switching to a green tariff. If you cannot give money, give your time to a green project such as scrub clearance or tree-planting.
Clare Durham
Can you help? E-mail troubleshooter@thetimes.co.uk with your answer to the following problem for the chance to win a £25 gift voucher.
My daughter is 15 and wants to take up a Saturday job to supplement her pocket money. I am reluctant to let her because I think that she should focus on her homework, but my wife believes it is a good way to teach the value of money. What do other parents think? Isn’t it a bit mean to make her work for money when we can support her comfortably?
Paul King