Phone deal that doesn’t ring true Bills soared despite the promises of much cheaper calls

DEPENDING who you believe, I’ve either been vindictively attacking a telecoms firm, or helping one of its extremely unhappy clients.

This angry episode began when I received a message beginning “Please help!” from Mark Ballard, who runs building refurbishment company Stockline Limited.

“We are a small business, successfully trading for over 18 years and in danger of losing everything because of mis-selling by a company that claimed to be able to save small businesses thousands of pounds,” he told me.

That company is New

Image Communications, a “trusted partner” of Vodafone.

Run from North London by Adnan “Andy” Ulhaq, it boasts of “cost effective bespoke mobile phone solutions”.

In an email it promised Mr Ballard big monthly savings, saying: “You have paid

£647 but in future all you will pay is £443, all the installation is free of cost and the landline phones free of cost, plus huge benefits.”

But since then Mr Ballard has been hit with monthly bills from Vodafone for between £600 and £1,100.

He says that he was charged for 12 landlines despite only having three, there was no internet access, no insurance for handsets and one office mobile was not ported over to the new deal with the others.

Since switching accounts in September 2017, Stockline has paid more than £15,000 to Vodafone, which says it is still owed another £13,000.

Getting out of this deal isn’t simple because the contract is for 60 months with early termination penalties.

When I approached Vodafone it passed the buck, saying that although Stockline was its customer “the contract for services was with New Image Communications”.

It did at least say: “We have paused debt collection whilst Stockline and New Image Communications look to resolve their dispute.”

When I asked New Image Communications for a comment, Mr Ulhaq got his lawyers, Charles Russell Speechlys, onto me.

They accused me of having “the apparent intention of vindictively damaging our client’s and Vodafone’s respective reputations”.

They didn’t explain why I might want to do that, and went on: “It appears Stockline is attempting to use the Mirror as a pawn in a commercial dispute between two companies to potentially destroy the business of a self-made man from an immigrant background.”

Is Mr Ulhaq an immigrant? I have no idea, and I have no idea why that might be relevant.

As for being used as a pawn, I’ll let Mr Ballard explain my role.

“As a senior investigative journalist he has been instrumental in assisting us with our grievance and provided much needed support,” he told Charles Russell Speechlys, who had asked him to stop copying me into correspondence. “We will most certainly continue seeking his advice where needed, despite any apparent threats or intimidation from your firm to cease doing so.”

The letter from Charles Russell Speechlys included the usual threat to sue, saying that running a story would put the Mirror “at risk of a substantial damages claim should the article be defamatory”.

What the law firm did not include in its response was anything to explain why Mr Ballard’s bills were so much higher than the rate promised by New Image Communications.

He has now switched his custom to BT and says he’ll fight Vodafone in court if it charges him any termination fees.

ANGRY Mark Ballard was promised lower bills by Adnan Ulhaq, inset