I paid £3k for a hearing aid — but STILL can’t enjoy the music I love
MY WIFE and I, both aged 80, bought hearing aids from Claritas costing £2,999 for each pair. My wife’s was faulty and she received a full refund.
I explained to Claritas I had been tested by other firms who said they could not help me. I have a problem with pitch sounds, it seems.
However, the Claritas audiologist said they could sort this out and I would be given time to try them out.
I explained that, as music club secretary, I needed the aids on concert nights to hear music clearly, record it and to write magazine reviews etc.
They turned out to be unsuitable but I have been unable to obtain a refund.
Claritas says the hearing aids are as described and that a trial period was not offered. However, the salesman had told me in front of my wife that this was not an issue. L. O., West Midlands. Hearing aids are a very personal item. Those who use them often seem to struggle in noisy environments, particularly modern restaurants. i am therefore surprised that a trial period does not come as standard.
Claritas still says it believes you need more time to get used to them to derive the benefit.
it also says a refund would usually be offered immediately if the sale was made under the terms of the trial period or if the hearing aids were not as described or fit for purpose.
it says it can find no evidence the sale was made under the terms of a trial period.
it also says the hearing aids dispensed are in its opinion both as described and fit for purpose.
it says the audiologist explained that you may have issues with sound quality when in groups and in large spaces. it also says it tried to counsel you and make adjustments to the hearing aids.
However, it understands you wish to draw a line under this, so has given you a full refund as a gesture of goodwill.
This clearly comes down to your word against the salesman’s and readers must draw their own conclusions. IN YOUR Prudent Investor column you write that my wife and I are able to leave property and savings of £325,000 each (total £650,000).
You also said that those with children will soon be able to leave £1million free of inheritance tax. When will this new upper limit come into force?
Our circumstances leave my wife and I over the lower figure but just below the upper. K. P., by email.
as journalisTs we aim for clarity, brevity and simplicity. i succeeded in the latter two when talking about inheritance tax, but failed on the clarity score.
The problem when we are writing to a specific length is always what to leave out and i chose to surrender the finer details of the iHT changes. so here they are in full for you and others.
in the summer 2015 Budget, then Chancellor george osborne added further complexity and unfairness to inheritance tax with a new residence allowance. This would be worth £100,000 per person from april 6, 2017, rising to £ 125,000 from april 2018, £150,000 from april 2019 and £175,000 from april 2020.
The allowance is in addition to the normal £325,000 — so by april 2020, individuals will be able to leave £500,000, meaning married couples and civil partners could leave £1million between them.
The current limit, including the residence allowance, is £450,000 per person or £900,000 per couple.
But there are provisos. The residence allowance applies only to the main residence so a couple would need a property worth at least £350,000 to benefit in full.
special rules protect the allowance for those who downsize from a larger property or go into care.
Most controversially, it only applies if the property is left to direct descendants. This includes children, grandchildren, stepchildren and adopted children — but not nieces and nephews.
so those who have chosen not to have children, or are unable to have them, face discrimination.
MY 85-year-old friend has had a Sky account for about 12 years paying by direct debit. She has no savings and struggles on the state pension.
Last year she stopped most channels but kept sport.
Recently, with debts rising, she tried to close the account entirely but was told she was under contract until February.
She says she did not sign a contract. Can you help? J. A., Glenrothes.
WHen your friend downgraded her TV subscription last august, the adviser told her the change would activate a new 18-month minimum term.
sky says it sent a letter outlining the changes. it also says it tried to phone on three occasions but could not get through.
Your friend phoned again in May this year to close the account which was when she was told about the minimum term again.
This highlights a problem with 18-month minimum terms. surely downgrading your subscription is a sign you are trying to cut costs and should not automatically trigger a new contract, especially in the case of elderly people.
sky says there was no fault or error on its part, but it has spoken to your friend and removed the minimum term and balance owing on her account as a gesture of goodwill.
a spokesman says: ‘at sky we take every customer issue seriously and we always try to give our customers the best possible experience.’