Post Office Home Phone

Anomalous

My elderly mother in law wanted the any time calls deal with the post office. when I discovered the deal she actually got there was no contract, no package sent it was done over the phone. The "agreement" had been going on for nearly 2 years the difference if she had the correct package is £400. I'm livid. She had no idea they put her on the wrong package. I've continued the complaint to deadlock and will go to Ombudsman.
They're defence is the time it took for the complaint to be made. The assumption is she was happy with the package. Are they right? How can they just assume?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Anomalous wrote: »

My elderly mother in law wanted the any time calls deal with the post office. when I discovered the deal she actually got there was no contract, no package sent it was done over the phone. The "agreement" had been going on for nearly 2 years the difference if she had the correct package is £400. I'm livid. She had no idea they put her on the wrong package. I've continued the complaint to deadlock and will go to Ombudsman.
They're defence is the time it took for the complaint to be made. The assumption is she was happy with the package. Are they right? How can they just assume?

I think any sensible person would assume that if someone was on a package for two years without complaint, then they were happy with it.

Anomalous

so that's the law is it?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Anomalous wrote: »

so that's the law is it?

No. You asked how they can assume, and I answered that question.

[Deleted User]

Anomalous wrote: »

I discovered the deal she actually got there was no contract, no package sent it was done over the phone. The "agreement" had been going on for nearly 2 years

This is still a contract, I'm afraid.

Who says she is on the "wrong" deal? Just you, or do Post Office agree it was their error?

It looks to me that you are entirely at the mercy of their goodwill, which won't be forthcoming if you go to the Ombudsman.

Anomalous

Ok. Any chance you could help the case?It's kind of why I bothered to post it

[Deleted User]

Anomalous wrote: »

Any chance you could help the case?

What "case"?

Your Mother In Law agreed to a particular package and then proceeded to pay for that for two years.
I assume you then came along and discovered that a different package would have been more suitable/cheaper?

There is little point in complaining that the Post Office did not put your relative on the cheapest tariff because they are under no obligation to do that. Do you have any proof that she requested a different package but was put on something else against her wishes?

There is also no point complaining that she has no contract when she clearly has.

Instead of threatening the Post Office with the Ombudsman, I'd be working with them to get her the cheapest deal possible in future.

Anomalous

My mother in law has a disability and had no idea she was being overcharged. If someone can help give me weight to my case I'd really be grateful.
There was no paperwork and I didn't know she was overpaying until she admitted the bill was too high. She wanted the same package she had at her previous address and thought that is what she got. Not having paperwork or recording of the conversation (they said is rare) seems wrong

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

poppasmurf_bewdley

Your MIL has no case.

She has been in a contract for two years without complaint. Now you have come along and decided she's been on the wrong plan for the last two years. And believe those supplying the service are at fault.

So go to the Ombudsman, and come back and tell us what they say. Because, as you can see, regulars on these columns are queuing up to support you.

Anomalous

Another segueing for the Post Office. Her disability makes no difference, neither not having a contract?

Anomalous

Thanks.
There was no contract or package sent. If I didn't go through her bills she would have continued overpaying assuming the calls were free. They said it was rare for them to lose the telephone conversation recording too.