Three mobile took £616 from my bank after contract ended
I ENDED my mobile phone contract with Three in December 2015, giving notice in November. However, it has continued taking money from my account — and I have now overpaid by £615.78.
It says that because I did not use the optional PAC code (which allows customers to take their number when they move to a new supplier), this meant my line remained live.
I was never told that if I chose not to use the PAC code, Three would continue charging £41 per month.
I have been in touch with it several times without success.
C. G., Middlesex. Three maintains that when you were given your PAC code on November 30, 2015, you were advised by phone and text message that it needed to be passed on to your new network within 30 days or your account would remain active.
A spokesman for Three told me it says it does not cancel accounts until the PAC code is used by another network, so as to prevent customers losing their existing numbers.
Three says that after you made contact in March this year to say that you thought the account had been closed, it tried to get in touch with you three times, but could not do so.
In April, after you wrote to Three, it closed your account immediately and waived the balance.
however, after I made contact, it additionally waived the balance for the 15 bills you had paid, meaning that you will receive a £615.78 refund.
I was intrigued to discover an account remains active until a PAC code is used by the new provider. It seems there are two ways to cancel an account. You can simply give 30 days’ notice.
But if you wish to take your number, then a PAC code is generated and your account will remain active until this is used by another network — this is to prevent you losing your number.
So, if you initially think you will take your number and get a PAC code, but then change your mind, you must contact your old provider to make certain your contract will end when you want it to. MY SON rented a flat. In October 2014, he got a letter saying his damage deposit of £368.33 had been transferred to the Deposit Protection Service.
Last January, he was admitted to hospital with sepsis and was in intensive care for four weeks, but died at just 46. I cleared his flat and handed back the keys in the middle of February. His rent was up to date.
I have been trying to get the deposit back from the DPS. I have written to it every week and, each time, it sends me the same form requesting the ID number, which I have supplied each time by filling in the form.
I’ve explained my son’s death. I was even sent a different ID number, which I put on the last form. A week has gone by, and I have now received another form requesting the repayment ID. Mrs G. E., Lancashire. The Deposit Protection Service is run by Computershare, to whom I put your problem. It offered excuses for what happened to you, but frankly they’re not good enough.
As is too often the case, no one took note of your circumstances as a recently bereaved parent and made it their responsibility to sort things out as smoothly as possible for you.
Computershare says the initial delays were because you sent paperwork without the right information for it to make payments securely.
Fair enough — but then, why didn’t it immediately note your situation and help you through the next stages?
Computershare further says that once the landlord had sent through the details needed for the payment, it sent the cheque to the tenancy address, rather than to your address. Again, this was a wholly avoidable mistake that suggests somebody operating on autopilot, rather than looking at your individual needs.
This cheque was returned three weeks after being sent and a new one has now been issued, which should be with you.
To its credit, once I got in contact, Computershare did sort out your problem extremely quickly. It has made direct contact with you and offered to pay £250 to a charity of your choice in the name of your son. IN OCTOBER, I was informed of fraud totalling £1,575 on my John Lewis Partnership card. It cancelled the card and sent a new one.
After several weeks, the cash was credited back to my card, but the direct debit had already been taken. This meant I was overdrawn, so I requested the money be paid into it instead.
It did this in two separate amounts of £1,016 and £559 paid on December 9 and December 19. However, it debited the same amounts from my card on the same dates. Consequently, I am still owed £1,575.
I have phoned numerous times and got nowhere. E. F., London. I THINK you’re having trouble juggling numbers. I looked at the case with HSBC, which runs the John Lewis Partnership card, and we both think all is in order.
The fraudulent transactions were credited back to your card in December, which left your account in credit by £1,575. This amount was then transferred in full from your Partnership card to your bank account in December. Therefore, that amount appears as a debit on your statement.
It doesn’t mean you’ve been charged for the transaction again. It simply reflects that the money moved to your bank.
If the money had not appeared as a debit, you would have received the payment twice: once onto your card and once into your bank account. HSBC will confirm this in writing, and I understand it has already called you to talk through the matter.