Your ideas

Here’s a starter: would you pay more for “margarine” than you would for butter?
Well, many people do when they buy “Lurpack Spreadable”. This very expensive product doesn’t claim to be anything in particular but people assume by the name that it’s some kind of Spreadable butter, which it isn’t. My brother used it and when I pointed this out he thought I was nuts – “of course it’s butter – it’s Lurpack! This from a normally very clever bloke…….

Is anyone else becoming increasingly concerned about the use of personal data being captured by Google and others to drive the creation of false and misleading adverts? A recent example I’ve reported to Google and the ASA is: “[my village location] Police Urge Residents To Carry This With Them At All Times”. “This” turns out to be a ShadowHawk flashlight.

There are few well-hidden disclaimers in the advertorial, once you click through, but the principle remains that using personal information in this way to create a “relevant” advertisement is almost bound to be false, if not downright dishonest. Similar ads have appeared claiming that local residents have made £000’s or lost pounds by following a weight loss programme. Both patently untrue!

Time for a ban on this style of targeted advertising, before it gets totally out of hand?

I think the telephone line rental should be scrapped because everyone has mobile phones these days and whilst many of us have broadband, I think line rental is a waste of money. It’s just keeping people in jobs

After the terrorist attacks on Brussels International Airport, which closed it for over a month, easyJet started using Lille as their alternative to Brussels and offered to refund anyone the cost of getting from Brussels to Lille as a result. I was initially told that I could get an immediate refund of train tickets from Brussels to Lille at the easyJet desk in Lille Airport but nobody there knew anything about that so we were told to apply for compensation online, which I did. I filed 4 claims, over a period of weeks, and found each very difficult to process. In each case, at the end of the process, the website gave an error message saying the receipt files couldn’t be uploaded and that I had to start again and do it by email, which I did. I got an immediate, automated, response, with a reference number, but with no cross-reference to the flight concerned, so I had to rely on my own note keeping to know which claim was for which flight. I was told that I would be paid by cheque, which seemed odd, as they obviously had my credit card details, and lots more, as an easyJet Plus member, from the original bookings. Weeks passed and I heard nothing so I chased easyJet on two of the claims, as a test. I received an email, apologising for the delay on each and then, weeks later, a rejection of one of the claims, with no explanation as to why it had been rejected. I responded, asking for more details, and was told that the claim would be re-submitted. In the 4 months since I made the claims I have had a single cheque for about half the value of one of the 4 claims and nothing else, with no justification for the €19 payment.

It seems to me that easyJet are using every trick in the book to minimise their payments for these claims, firstly by making it very difficult for the claims to be submitted and tracked, by failing to process them properly and rejecting them for no reason and by paying with cheques, which can get lost. I have an Internet bank account with no ‘local’ branch so cashing the cheque was a hassle, although I was determined to lodge it to my account before it expired.

This is underhand behaviour by easyJet, which flies in the face of their public pronouncements on how simple it would be to be repaid the cost of the inconvenience of using Lille instead of Brussels for these flights.

We were recently given gift tokens for theatre tickets, which required us to redeem them via a company called Encore Tickets. We wanted 4 tickets to a West End show and the company quoted us the face value – £65 – plus a “booking fee” of £19 per ticket – a total charge of £76 for tickets with a face value of £260, or 35%. We declined this offer and were subsequently able to buy the tickets from the theatre’s own website for £55 each, saving altogether nearly £100. Of course we now fear being asked for exorbitant “fees” the next time we want to use the vouchers. Are the West End theatres aware of this scam, as I consider it? Are people who buy such gift vouchers aware of it?

Why haven’t you pursued the case for banning, on the grounds that they are legally dubious, Viagogo etc? If ever there was a scam this surely takes some beating? Outrageous and exploitation of the consumer come to mind. But apparently they are above the law?

Many insurance companies will charge from £40 to £80 (or more) to make an adjustment or cancellation to a policy. This is what they call an ‘administration’ charge and can seriously increase the policy charge particularly when it’s compulsory insurance like motor insurance. I except that there needs to be a small charge to make any change but in my opinion these charges can be excessive – where a flat fee would suffice.