GG writes: Last May we flew to Miami, and had travel insurance through White Horse Insurance Company. After going through security at Heathrow, my wife discovered she had lost her gold watch. It must have happened within minutes of her noticing the loss, as the imprint of the watch was still visible on her wrist. We were not allowed back to search for it ourselves, but we persuaded an employee to retrace our steps back to the check-in desk — to no avail. Nor could we report it to the police as this also would have meant going back through security. On our return, we contacted the hotel we had stayed at overnight, the bus company that took us to the terminal building, and the airport information desk, but no watch had been handed in. We claimed on our insurance but this was turned down as we had no police report. We explained why not — but this cut no ice with the company. Can you help?
White Horse was technically correct, according to the terms of its policy, but not very imaginative. When I initially put your problem to the company, it said it needed documentary evidence that you had at least tried to report the loss and find the watch. At my suggestion, you wrote once again to the hotel, the bus company and to BAA, which runs Heathrow — but despite a reminder letter three weeks later, heard nothing from any of them.
I spoke to White Horse again, outlining all your efforts, and this time it agreed to give you £100 as a goodwill gesture. You are happy with this, as it is a lot better than the nothing you had resigned yourself to.
Failing to see the wood for the trees
NK writes: I work for a small charity that works with indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest. For a year we banked with Barclays and experienced a catalogue of errors. We have claimed compensation but have been offered only a small fraction of what we believe we are entitled to.
A small number of errors were made regarding international payments, one of which was the direct responsibility of Barclays, one of which emanated from overseas banks, and a third that appears to have come about because of a simple misunderstanding between yourself and the bank.
I agree that Barclays should refund you for the direct costs of overdraft interest, charges and fees that have arisen because of the mistakes, and as far as I am aware it has already done so.
However, where you and I part company is over the matter of compensation. You claim the errors have involved you in 35 hours’ extra work throughout the year and want to be refunded at an hourly rate of £120, making £4,200.
Plus, you say, the fact you had to spend so long on the bank’s errors meant you lost the opportunity of raising a further £4,000 and you want to be reimbursed for that. And, finally, you claim the errors meant you had to come into work on December 28 last year (which was a working day, although you had taken it as holiday) and you want to be reimbursed at double your normal daily rate of £469.50 — in other words, £939 for that single day — making a grand total of £9,139.
Barclays has offered you recompense at £10 per hour for the lost time (which is in line with the rate used by the Financial Ombudsman Service in such cases) and a goodwill gesture of £300 — a total of £650.
There is clearly not much of a meeting of minds here, and I am not sure you’ll be much happier with what I propose. I accept that, as a small charity (a fact you frequently emphasise), you cannot afford to waste time sorting out banking problems, and that this is bound to have an adverse impact on the charity’s real work. But when it comes to the eye-watering rates you quote of £120 an hour, and £939 for a single day, frankly I find my milk of human kindness has ceased to flow. If I were advising the charity, as opposed to yourself, I would suggest it consider employing a clerical worker at a rather more realistic figure — or, even better, find a volunteer.
I have asked Barclays to double its compensation to £600, making a total of £950, and it has agreed. I feel this is generous but it is up to you, or rather the charity’s trustees, whether you accept it.
Penalty on bond
looks watertight
GD writes: Can you help or advise? Following my niece’s death in 2000, my family consulted an adviser working for Halifax on where to invest money for the benefit of four children who were family members, the sum to be held in trust until each child reached their 25th birthday. The advice was to put the money into a Norwich Union with-profits bond. The eldest was 19 at the time, and now he is approaching his 25th birthday we find a market value adjustment (MVA) being imposed on his share of the fund. We had the clear impression that he would be able to take the money out free of all penalties at that age and complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, we have been turned down.
A lot of people believe it should be possible to appeal against decisions made by the FOS. The loudest voices calling for this have actually been firms of independent advisers who think they have been unfairly treated.
Ultimately, however, there has to come a stage where no more appeals are allowed. Under FOS rules, both parties to a dispute can insist that their complaint is passed from adjudicator level (at which most formal decisions are issued) up to the top level, where an ombudsman will review the case and issue a final decision. But that is it; no further appeal is possible.
Unfortunately, if understandably, it seems an increasing number of people are not prepared to accept a final decision, and have taken to seeing this column as an unofficial appeals process. While I don’t want to put people off writing in, I think it needs to be pointed out that the number of staff working for the FOS is approximately 1,000, while the number working on this column is precisely one.
I have studied your 86-page dossier, I hope reasonably diligently, but I cannot come to any other conclusion except that in this case the FOS decision was, on balance, right. The possibility of an MVA was very clearly spelled out in the documentation you received.
That said, I noted that the adjudicator in your case did not, in issuing his decision, explicitly invite you to put your case to an ombudsman, so although you are technically time-barred from doing so, the FOS has agreed to re-open your case if you wish.
In my view, however, I don’t think it is worth trying because I don’t believe the decision will be changed.
A lesson in trusts for two graduates
DD writes: My two children have had a property held in trust for them for the past 12 years. We are about to sell it and are looking at a hefty capital-gains-tax bill. My son has heard it may be possible to offset some of the gain against their respective student loans. Is this true, or wishful thinking?
Wishful thinking.
A sweet ending to a bitter dispute
PC writes: I would like your help in a dispute with Npower that has been going on since December 2004. Matters have now moved towards a court hearing, which frankly I am not looking forward to.
This was a complicated story involving your moving house, having to move out again because of asbestos, the demolition of a nearby workshop and much else besides. Various bills were presented, some of which seemed incorrect to you. Npower has spoken to you and apologised; it seems an incorrect starting point for the meter was at the root of the problem.
Your final bill was calculated at £110 but this will be waived because of the inconvenience the firm has caused you. It has sent you a small gift: not the originally planned flowers, as you are allergic to them, or wine, as you didn’t think your wife would like that — but a box of chocolates, which I hope will go down well.
- E-mail Diana Wright at the address below 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
