J V writes: Last autumn my wife and I hired a pickup truck in Chile from United Rent a Car. We paid with my Goldfish Mastercard on the understanding that if we returned the vehicle early we would have a refund. This we did, and the manager agreed to reimburse us three days' hire at $124.72 (£62). He also agreed to refund us the cost of the lockable luggage box, which was not of the correct type (another $136). The money was, however, not refunded to my card despite numerous e-mails. One of these was a copy of a mail from him to one of his staff authorising the payment (written in Spanish). I contacted Morgan Stanley, the owner of Goldfish, with all relevant documentation, but I have got nowhere. I was told that unless I provided an acknowledgement that the company owed me money in English (as opposed to Spanish) I would not be refunded. Can you help? My only other option is to go to Chile and sue.
Morgan Stanley says the reason your claim was initially turned down was not because the chain of e-mails you sent was in Spanish, but because they did not in fact provide sufficient evidence for the company to initiate a "charge-back claim" against the car-hire company for the amount claimed, under the Mastercard rules it has to follow.
Not being a Spanish speaker (or reader) I was at a loss here. However, Morgan Stanley has now had another look at your problem and accepts that you have done everything you can to substantiate the claim. As a gesture of goodwill, it will refund the full sum, making sure that any extra fees for currency exchange and so on are also refunded. In all, this will amount to some £130.
Lesson in manners for card staff
D S writes: In July last year I transferred £3,000 from my credit card to a Lloyds TSB card, which was offering 0% interest. I was told the transfer would take seven working days but it took about three weeks, by which time I had to pay £49 interest. I have been with TSB since I was 19 and went to my branch to complain. I was assured it was the bank's fault and that it would refund the £49. I have called in at the branch every month since and had repeated assurances the matter would be put right. But when I called card services the person I spoke to was very rude, and told me the branch should never have made such a promise. Now I've fractured my hip and cannot sort this out.
Advertisement
You want me to remind the people at Lloyds TSB card services that its staff could be given lessons in servility. While I'm all for banking staff knowing their place, I think lessons in politeness, not to mention civility, might be more to the point. Nonetheless, the content (rather than the manner) of the card services' message was technically correct. This was a matter for the credit-card department, not the banking arm. It should have been explained to you that transfers can take a couple of weeks, and that it was at least possible your previous card provider would charge one more month's interest. This did not happen and, moreover, the branch did make a promise to you. I told Lloyds TSB it should therefore refund the £49 as a gesture of goodwill, and it has agreed, crediting it to your card.
Annuity advice wasn't so great
A G writes: Last year I decided to use The Sunday Times Retirement Service to search for the best deal for a personal pension annuity. The firm that runs this, the Annuity Bureau, sent me several quotations, recommending I accept the annuity provided by GE Life. However, I was not happy with this quote and contacted other financial advisers. Most suggested Partnership Insurance's annuity. The Annuity Bureau accepted this was a better deal and offered me £30 for inconvenience, an offer it refused to raise. I would be grateful for any help or advice you can give me.
The Annuity Bureau, part of Alexander Forbes, now says that this was a "rare mistake" by one of its consultants. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that a firm associated with this newspaper should have let you down and, like you, I felt that £30 was not sufficient recompense for the additional work you had to do. The Annuity Bureau says that had such a mistake happened today, its guidelines would dictate that it should offer you £100, and this is what it has now done. You have accepted this.
Endowment snag of missing lender
Advertisement
S G writes: In 1982 we took out a 25-year endowment with Clerical Medical, which is due to mature this month. We were told by the firm that, in order for it to pay out, we needed to get disclaimers from two previous mortgage lenders: Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation (UK) and Abbey National. Both had registered an interest in the property when we had mortgages with them, from 1982-4 in the former case and 1984-7 in the latter. Abbey provided the paperwork, but all our efforts to trace the Canadian firm have failed.
In the 1980s, it was standard practice for mortgage lenders to insist on a formal charge being registered on an endowment used as security for a loan. What these lenders should have done was to notify the insurance company when their loan was repaid that they no longer had an interest in the policy.
You tried very hard to track down Canada Permanent, but believe it was sold off in parts years ago. Clerical Medical believes it has found it but, in any case, this is academic.
There is a simple procedure that insurers can follow, which is to go ahead and pay out the proceeds to policyholders, while requiring them to sign a form of indemnity, undertaking to reimburse the insurer if such a lender reemerges and tries to claim the proceeds. I suggested this to Clerical Medical, and you should now get the full £30,000.
Utility charges stuck on high rate
Advertisement
M F writes: My gas and utility supplier is Southern Gas and Electric. Although it announced price decreases for gas (March 1) and electricity (April 1), I noticed that my units were charged at the old, higher rate right up to June 4. When I called to challenge this, the company agreed to apply the lower prices manually. Others should be warned.
Well done for spotting this. Southern Electric says it is "not trying to hide anything" but accepts that "a small number of customers" have got bills charged at the higher rate. It says it will recalculate the bills manually for anyone who calls in. So check your bills and make the call now.
E-mail Diana Wright at the address below (no attachments please) or write to A Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1ST, giving a daytime telephone number. We cannot send personal replies or deal with every letter. Please do not send original documents or SAEs. Advice is offered without legal responsibility