EE billed vulnerable woman for phone she never knew she had

I WORK full-time as a carer for a young lady with profound emotional and learning disabilities. She lives with me and was previously homeless, as she couldn’t live with relatives.

Before she arrived here, her mother had been her appointee and had a history of abusing the benefits. She had taken her daughter to an EE shop to get an iPhone with a monthly charge of £50. Her daughter has no idea how to use this phone, and ran up huge bills. EE would not allow us to cancel the contract as it had been signed-for some months previously.

More recently, a £45-per-month SIM card was purchased online using her bank details but without her knowledge; she was in a respite facility at the time. After consulting its legal team, EE refused to cancel the contract because the purchase had been placed more than two weeks previously. The SIM card was for a family member and was, I believe, obtained fraudulently. I have reported this to social services but, as it happened within the family, they are reluctant to go to the police. Name and address supplied. I was horrified when I read your letter. Firms have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments to their policy under the Equality act 2010. EE may not have been aware of the disability issues initially, but it would have become clear when you visited the shop.

It took some weeks for it to disentangle the case once I made contact. It has now closed the sIM-only plan and cancelled all of the outstanding balance. It has also arranged for all payments so far to be refunded.

EE says that in this case, the family member had access to all of the personal details needed to set up the account. It has been in touch to explain what happened and to help organise additional security, including sharing information from action Fraud to prevent any recurrences.

However, I did not feel this went far enough. after further pushing, EE agreed to cancel the original iPhone contract and switch it to a pay-as-you-go account, to give both of you more control.

EE emphasises that it was not aware of any disability issues at the time the contracts were taken out. It adds that it must treat all customers equally, so refusal of the contracts could have placed it in breach of obligations.

However, I feel this does not excuse its refusal to cancel the sIM-only contract once you had informed it of the fraud, especially as the legal team were involved in that decision. I AM A retired teacher and have been a self-employed tutor and cleaner since April 2012. I am 62 and do not qualify for a state pension until I am 66.

I receive three, small teachers’ pensions based on my own and my late husband’s work. All three are tax-exempt as tax was paid during the employment.

HMRC has incorrectly taxed all three pensions at source since 2012/13. My tax codes for those years are wrong, too. However, it is refusing to correct the codes, or to send me a tax rebate. Also, it has not given me any allowances for my selfemployed expenses. E. K., Stoke. FroM the information you sent me, your tax appears correct.

First, your teacher’s pensions are taxable. You now think the basis of your misunderstanding was a conversation with your late husband, who said you should never have to pay tax on them. This was because of your low income at the time.

Your coding notice refers to £5,226 of your teacher’s widow’s pension being tax-free. However, this is simply explaining how your personal allowance — the tax-free portion of your income, £11,500 this tax year — is used.

You also say that HMrC has not made any allowance for your self-employed expenses. But it is up to you to make reasonable deductions from your profits when you present your accounts.

You told me you had dispensed with your accountant; I suspect they did this for you in the past. You can send a simple profit-andloss summary to HMrC rather than doing full accounts.

I sent your letter to HMrC so it could double-check that all is in order. It has been in touch with you and is suggesting you send your self-employed expenses for the past four years so your tax can be put in order. You should eventually receive a rebate. MY 90-year-old widowed sister is registered blind and is forgetful, so I look after her affairs.

I found two £20 Co-op Bank cheques in her house. Both were out of date. I have made contact to ask whether the cheques are from the bank or from one of its customers, but it says it cannot tell me because of the Data Protection Act. W. F. C., County Down. Co-oP Bank has a problem here because it is indeed bound by the Data Protection act. It has been very helpful and has managed to trace where the cheques originated, but the difficulty is it cannot say who the customer is without their permission.

The organisation that wrote the cheques has not been helpful and refused to have its details passed on. Co-op Bank has now asked it to contact you directly.

I have done a bit of detective work and found the initials of the organisation are on the cheque. Type these into Google along with your sister’s location, and one organisation pops up.

I hope it is more responsive and helpful when you make contact.