Why won’t our airline pay for ruining the end of our cruise?

AT THE end of a river cruise in France this May, we were informed that the flight we were booked on with KLM had been cancelled and replaced with an Air France one the following day.

We had to leave our ship and book into a hotel near Marseille airport for the night, but were told we would receive compensation.

We phoned Air France and were told to write and provide original documents regarding flights, accommodation and meals. We sent these to its headquarters in Paris on May 11 at a cost of £9.95.

The documents were acknowledged, but we were told the claim would not be dealt with in the firm’s usual timeframe. We have heard nothing since.

We are two retired couples who are out of pocket by £210.10 in our case and £187 in our friends’ case. F. P., Newcastle-upon-Tyne one potential error leapt out from your letter. Why did you apply to Air France for the money when it was KLM which cancelled your flight?

They are both part of the same group, but I suspect it would have made things much simpler had you applied directly to KLM for compensation.

However, if Air France in Paris felt it was not its responsibility to deal with your problem, then it should have been a simple matter for the airline to suggest you make contact with KLM.

If Air France was happy to deal with it, the firm should have done so, or arranged to pass the documentation along to KLM.

The attitude I received from KLM’s press office was in complete contrast to the way you had been shrugged off by Air France in Paris.

KLM sprang into action, sorting out the issue in a couple of days.

Its press office provided a statement from Air France, apologising for your experience.

‘our team have investigated the case and we have now offered Mr P. and his companions compensation of ¤250 (£219) per person, in addition to the full reimbursement of hotel charges.

‘We hope this is a satisfying resolution.’ Very satisfying, thank you. If you want bureaucracy, go to the French; if you want efficiency, try the Dutch. MY 85-year-old friend has had a Sky account for 11 or 12 years, paying by direct debit. She has no savings and struggles on the state pension with a bank overdraft.

Last year, she stopped most of her channels but kept sport. However, about a week ago, with debts piling up, she phoned to close the account entirely and was told she was under contract until next 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 that the change would activate a new 18-month minimum term.

Sky says a letter was sent out outlining the changes. It also says it tried to phone on three occasions to check she was happy, but could not get through — perhaps she has some form of call minder system or, like me, ignores numbers she does not recognise.

Your friend phoned again in May this year to close the account, which was when she was told about the minimum term again.

I feel this letter highlights one of the issues with these 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 whose circumstances can change in a relatively short time.

Sky says that while it feels there was no fault or error in its engagement with your friend, it is open to individual requests when there are extenuating circumstances.

It has, therefore, spoken to your friend and removed the minimum term and balance owing on her account as a gesture of goodwill and will close her account.

A spokesman says: ‘At Sky we take every customer issue seriously and we always try to give our customers the best possible experience. Having heard about this lady’s extenuating circumstances, we have contacted her and, as a gesture of goodwill, we have removed the remaining term on balance from her account.’ MY LATE mother-in-law had accounts for her grandchildren, including my son, with Cheshire Building Society, which was taken over by Nationwide.

My son has tried to access his account without success.

Nationwide says it is closed, but we have the book, a copy of which I have enclosed. S. A., Preston, Lancs. A ReCURRInG theme in my postbag is old passbook accounts. People often stumble across one that appears to have cash in it. But I’d say nine times out of ten this is not the case. So I was not surprised when nationwide’s search came up with nothing.

There are no records for your son or this account. This means it was closed prior to the merger, says nationwide.

The difficulty with old passbook accounts is that they can show a balance even when all the money has been withdrawn.

This may be because it has been converted to another account, the cash has been transferred to a higher-paying account, or the account has been closed — none of which requires the passbook to be shown or updated.