Fighting for your money

I was refused boarding for my flight home thanks to Boots’ confusing code for returning travellers

Q Earlier this month I had to go to Montenegro on business for four days and organised a Covid PCR test with Boots’ online service, as a negative test is required to fly. At the same time I ordered a “day 2” PCR test, which travellers are required to take within two days of returning. I received an email confirmation from Boots for my £99 order.

Before returning to Britain passengers are required to complete an online “passenger locator form”, which, among an array of questions, requires confirmation of a booking of a “day 2” test. Only on filling in this form is it disclosed that a “passenger locator code” linked to the test booking must be entered.

I looked on my phone and could not see any “passenger locator code” on the Boots order form in my email queue. This meant I was unable to complete it and was refused boarding of my flight at the check-in. Another passenger suggested booking an online test with another provider, which I did at a cost of £69 and made the flight by a whisker.

Boots refused my later request that it reimburse me the £69 for the replacement test.

I find it extraordinary that the company does not recognise the failure in its system and appears happy for future customers to be equally inconvenienced. Surely customers should expect the very best service from Britain’s most famous chemist?

I admit this is a modest financial loss for me but surely is it a major failure in customer relations for Boots? – HP, Herts A I have personally decided against travelling abroad for the foreseeable future, mainly because the very idea of adding proof of Covid vaccination or negative testing on top of all the usual airport palaver sends me into a tailspin.

Your experience simply confirms to me that this is one hoop too many for me to jump through right now. So I was full of sympathy for your predicament when I spoke to Boots on your behalf to find out what had gone wrong.

This time round the company was more understanding of what had happened to you. It said it appreciated how, in the stress of the moment, while queuing at the Montenegro check-in, you could not easily find the required information on your phone.

However, the company maintained it was not at fault, as it said the booking reference you were required to add to the passenger locator form (which all travellers complete before they return home and must include evidence of a pre- booked a “day 2” test) was included in the confirmation email sent to you following your purchase.

Instead, it turns out you had used the first reference number you came to when you clicked on your Boots email. This happened to be your order number, which the computer rejected as invalid.

The Boots “international arrivals reference number” you were meant to have used was lurking further down the email. It could also have been found by logging into the Boots “portal”. To do this would have required you remembering a password. Give me strength.

But none of this was at all clear to you when you were fumbling to find the information in the check-in queue. Your stress was compounded when you were refused clearance to board the plane, so, with check-in closing, you sought a simple way out by paying for a new “day 2” test with another firm.

This service proved to be easier to use, with the relevant code high up in the firm’s confirmation email – and in bold – so you could not miss it. You completed the form and made your flight.

It is clear Boots did not help the situation by naming the code it issued you an “international arrivals booking reference”, which did not resemble the “passenger locator reference”

You sought a simple way out by paying for a new ‘day 2’ test with another firm for £69

requested on the official form. Boots has now refunded you the £99 cost of your whole Covid testing package, which you were delighted to receive.

Your feedback to Boots was that it should adapt its processes and present the relevant code more prominently, as ExpressTest, the rival you had turned to in your hour of need, had done.

Boots told me it had taken your comments on board and following my intervention said it was working to improve the wording to align with wider industry terminology. So expect to see the rogue code renamed “passenger locator reference” or something similar in future.

You told me you had booked a trip next month to Dubrovnik – but, alas for Boots, you will not be buying its Covid travel tests this time round.

Fraudster spent £6,000 on my Smile credit card but no one will help me fix it

Q I am in a desperate situation. I am 81 years of age and have heart disease and other serious health issues. I am awaiting open heart surgery.

On Saturday July 4 I received a text from my bank, Smile, the online banking brand of Co-op Bank, asking me if I had authorised a purchase from Asos, a firm I had not even heard of. I immediately texted back “no”. I forwarded a screenshot to prove that I had said “no”.

I then tried to phone the bank, which took ages to respond. During that time, I believe, my credit card was accessed by fraudsters who milked it for £6,228.

I did eventually get through to a man who said he was with bank security but things he said made me suspicious and I told him so, and he rang off. I think he might have had something to do with the bank as he knew about my last genuine transaction, which was to Reader Offers Limited, to purchase a cruise holiday. But I wasn’t sure.

I had my credit card in my possession at all times. I have used online banking with Smile since the 1990s. I may be physically infirm but my mind is alert and I know what I am doing. I have contacted Smile on numerous occasions to try to get this problem sorted out. I have even made a formal complaint but cannot obtain a reply even to that. My wife, who is 80 and in poor health, is, like me, under immense stress because of Smile’s inaction. – Anon A Your bank certainly managed to turn your smile upside down following the scam phone call that culminated in more than £ 6,000 being spent fraudulently on your credit card. With you and your wife both elderly and in poor health I was worried about the lackadaisical response shown by Smile’s fraud department over your mounting concern.

This included your shock when £471 in interest was still charged on the debt after you had asked the bank to freeze the account while the case was under investigation.

You endured a painful six-week wait and sent me increasingly frantic emails about being unable to sleep and eat thanks to the worry. But finally, last week, Smile came back to me with the conclusion – as if anyone doubted it – that you were indeed a victim of a scammer and it was out of your control. Hence all your money would be returned.

Smile told me it was sorry for the distress caused and blamed the complexity of the case for the delays. As well as refunding the £6,228 fraudulent payments, the bank arranged to correct any negative credit reference reporting that had been triggered by the fraudulent activity.

It paid you an extra £ 150 as an apology for not offering more reassurance via its customer service in the course of the investigation. You donated this to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, where your late son was treated over many years for serious liver damage, resulting in two liver transplants, tragically caused by a transfusion of contaminated blood.