In March, my husband was hospitalized due to a brain hemorrhage. Holding power of attorney over his finances, I accessed his bank account for the first time and was distressed to find he was being charged £165 monthly for a phone and broadband service with V4 Consumer.

In contrast, my son only pays £50 a month, indicating to me that V4 was taking advantage of a vulnerable elderly person. I reached out to V4 via email, expressing my concerns and requesting to cancel the contract.

Weeks later, I initiated a new contract with BT, which was supposed to take over the existing service for £56 monthly. However, BT informed me that my order was cancelled by V4. This unfortunate pattern repeated itself three times, with V4 continually cancelling my attempts to switch to BT over claims that they wouldn’t release the line.

I then instructed my bank to cease the direct debit payments. I also noted that my husband had been overcharged, leading the bank to initiate a refund process. To my surprise, a total of £932 was credited to my husband’s account labeled as a “V4 refund.”

The day after, our landline and broadband service were unexpectedly cut off, despite V4 being aware of my husband’s serious condition, which would hinder medical personnel from contacting me. V4 subsequently demanded reimbursement of the £932, even threatening to report me to debt collectors and credit agencies. They warned me of potential legal action that could entail £500 in court fees.

I was devastated. Daily, I received a barrage of emails and calls from V4 while I was juggling visits to my husband in various hospitals. I filed a complaint with the ombudsman, who sided with me, but V4 is disputing the decision and has three weeks to respond. How could this possibly be justified?

Despite my husband passing away in August, the matter remains unresolved.
Isobel, Sutherland

Expert Opinion

Learning of your experience during such a difficult time for your family is truly heartbreaking — especially the continued harassment after your husband’s passing.

I concurred that the £165 monthly charge seemed exorbitant and contacted V4 to ask for an explanation. They asserted that you used a combination of services, including an unlimited SIM-only mobile plan, landline, broadband, and additional features, claiming extensive usage. You contested this, stating that your use was only average and that the broadband service had been unreliable since your switch to V4 in 2021.

After consulting with your bank, they initiated a chargeback for the overpayments made between November 2023 and April 2024, requesting the £932.

Despite V4’s claims of service usage and their attempts to collect the outstanding amount, it became evident that they were obstructing your transition to another provider. V4 indicated they only recorded one transfer request from BT, which they denied due to an alleged debt.

You agreed to repay the amount only on the condition that V4 waive a £457 exit fee and allow you to switch. They finally consented, enabling the transition.

Even so, you still felt mistreated and believed your husband had been charged excessively over the years, prompting you to reach out. After I intervened, V4 acknowledged your husband’s passing for the first time and, based on the ombudsman’s assessment, agreed to refund £1,869 for the service upgrades approved in 2022.

In a statement, V4 Consumer expressed: “We extend our deepest sympathies to Isobel following her loss and remain willing to assist further.”

They provided you with £150 in compensation and committed to not contesting the ombudsman’s ruling.

While relieved to close this chapter, you noted: “During my husband’s final weeks, I was forced to focus on V4 and their court threats, even though they were fully aware of his critical condition. Compensation cannot rectify that distress.”

Juror’s Loss of Earnings Totaled £65 Daily

As a self-employed plasterer, I was summoned for jury duty in January. I attended court over six days, which resulted in lost earnings, though I’m eligible to claim for my losses.

Each of those days equates to a claim of £64.95. Yet, I’ve only received reimbursements for parking and food. Despite multiple calls and emails to the court, I have yet to receive payment.
Mark, Hampshire

Advice from Katherine Denham

Any individual experiencing income loss due to jury service is eligible to claim compensation. For the initial ten days, you can claim £32.47 for less than four hours in court, or £64.95 for more. After that period, the daily claim doubles to £64.95 for less than four hours, and £129.91 for longer durations.

In total, you were owed £389.70. Claims typically take seven to ten days to process, yet you’ve faced an eight-month wait. You also claimed £115.56 for expenses that were disbursed in March—so why the delay for the rest?

Your submission in February had proof of your earnings, but the court misplaced it. Upon following up, the liaison officer erroneously believed you were inquiring about previously paid expenses.

After contacting HM Courts & Tribunals Service, the overdue payments were expedited. They acknowledged a “miscommunication” had led to the delay.

You eventually received £389.70 alongside a £100 goodwill gesture.

Repeated Fridge Replacements with Limited Warranty

Four years ago, I purchased a Fisher & Paykel fridge freezer for approximately £3,000 with a five-year warranty. In 2022, when the ice maker failed, it was replaced under warranty.

The ice maker malfunctioned again last year, resulting in two technician visits, yet the issue persists. A few weeks ago, Fisher & Paykel sent me a second replacement, marking my third fridge in four years, but stated that my warranty would only last one more year.

Given my previous experiences, I lack confidence in this new appliance. Since it’s a replacement, shouldn’t I receive an additional five-year warranty?

I’m seeking an extended warranty; if not, this raises concerns about the company’s faith in its products.
Maria, London

Advice from Katherine Denham

The warranty typically initiates from the purchase date, which is why you have only a year left. However, considering your troubling experiences, it’s reasonable to worry about recurring issues with the ice maker when the warranty expires.

Initially, you sought a full refund before agreeing to a second replacement, although you were only offered partial compensation based on the fridge’s age. You still opted for another replacement despite your reservations about potential issues.

I reached out to Fisher & Paykel to negotiate an extended warranty based on your concerns, and they agreed to provide an additional five years of coverage.

The company remarked: “We pride ourselves on the quality of our appliances. Unfortunately, one of our products didn’t meet our standards, and we aim to rectify that. To assure Maria of long-term use of her refrigerator, we will extend her warranty by five years.”

If you have a money problem that you would like Katherine Denham to investigate, email [email protected]. Please include a phone number.