Glitch made my 'smart' dishwasher order me enough tablets to last three YEARS: SALLY SORTS IT
The dishwasher is connected to the Finish app on my phone.
However, when I ran low on tablets, the app ordered me a new delivery on four consecutive days.
I only found this out when packets kept turning up on my doorstep. I now have about three years' supply for which I was automatically billed £45.
I have complained, but two months on I've got nowhere.
J.C., Ware, Herts.
Rinsed: A reader's smart dishwasher ordered new packages of tablets on four consecutive days landing them with a £45 bill
Sally Hamilton replies: I was intrigued by the concept of intelligent ordering. It sounds a great way of ensuring you never run out of dishwasher tablets.
I'd find such a subscription service handy for other areas of domestic life such as loo rolls, though I'm not sure that many toilets are linked to the internet.
I do know some people who use a similar service for the re-ordering of ink for printers and there are smart fridges that prompt owners when they are running out of essentials.
The service you signed up to is called SmartFinish, which, as you described, tracks dishwasher usage and automatically sends out a new pack. Ideal, if it works.
Customers need to own a Wi-Fi-enabled dishwasher to take advantage of such auto-reordering.
The system is matched to the customer, so if you use the dishwasher more than usual, orders will turn up more frequently.
Gremlins seemingly got into the re-ordering system in your case, landing you with a pile of unwanted tabs.
When you initially complained, Finish said you must have made the additional orders yourself, which you said was laughable. Why would you order three years' worth of tabs over a few days?
Scott Dixon of consumer service Complaints Resolver, suggests customers getting nowhere with an over delivery like yours quote section 25 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
He says: 'This says the business is responsible for collecting and refunding the excess items at no cost to the customer.'
You asked Finish to do this but hit a brick wall.
I contacted Reckitt, the consumer goods giant that owns Finish, to ask it to resolve your dishwasher tab mountain pronto.
I didn't get anywhere at first so understood your frustration at the limited response to your complaint.
But when I chased a couple of weeks later, it turned up the dial and soon Finish refunded your £45 and told you to keep the excess product. It said the problem was due to a 'technical issue' with the app, which was quickly resolved.
When it asked if you wanted to continue the subscription, you politely declined.
Scam Watch
Drivers should beware a scam email that impersonates insurance company Admiral, consumer website Which? warns.
The email claims that you have been selected to win a free 'car emergency kit' that includes tools and a hazard triangle.
Scammers say to win the kit you need to answer a few questions by following the link on the email.
Do not click on this link. It aims to steal your personal and financial information.
Instead, report the email by forwarding it to report@phishing.gov.uk
Rental car mix-up left me with £375 bill
I booked a flight with EasyJet to arrive at Edinburgh on May 14, but in error reserved a rental car for pick up from Drivalia a day earlier.
I realised my mistake on May 13 and phoned the firm but was advised to sort it out on arrival.
When I arrived, I was issued with a second booking at a cost of £375 and received no refund for the first one. I realised later that I was charged again in the second booking for May 13.
I even got charged a further £115 for a parking offence that took place on May 13, before I even got to Edinburgh. Please help.
J.R., Hampshire.
Sally Hamilton replies: Any holiday that involves a vehicle rental fills me with dread as the process seems designed to catch customers out, whether it's the extortionate price of excess insurance at the desk, high charges for extras such as satnavs and child seats or the tricky rules around whether the fuel tank should be returned full or not.
Your experience highlights the costly risk of being tardy for picking up a rental car – even though you tried to correct the error in advance.
We all make mistakes, and you were prepared to take it on the chin – up to a point. But to be charged twice for the rental is not fair.
I asked Drivalia to reconsider, emailing both its chief executive and customer services. I heard nothing back from the former, but the latter requested you complete an online complaint form.
In that process you respectfully asked for a refund of the first booking and the extra day charged on the second rental. They declined, though they did refund the parking ticket and admin fee. How kind.
Hitting a roadblock with Drivalia, I approached EasyJet, since you had booked the hire from a link on its website.
EasyJet told me that while the site enables customers to make such bookings, these are provided by third party partners.
In your case, the Drivalia deal was found through EasyJet partner CarTrawler, a platform listing various hire options.
I am pleased to say CarTrawler's response was at the speed and standard I would have liked to have seen from Drivalia – with no hesitation in offering you a full refund of both hire bills, a total of £446.
A CarTrawler spokesman says: 'We were sorry to hear about J.R's experience. We understand booking errors can have a significant impact on travel plans, and we appreciate how frustrating this experience must have been.
'Although the original issue resulted from a date selection error, and the charges applied were in accordance with the car rental supplier's terms, a full refund of the original hire and additional rental costs has been arranged.'
CarTrawler adds: 'We encourage all customers to carefully review the travel dates and rental terms outlined in their booking voucher.
'Should any problems arise at any stage, our dedicated customer care team is available 24/7 to support travellers before, during, or after their journey.'
Straight to the point
I have had a policy with home repair company HomeServe since 2021 and I have never claimed on it.
Now we have a badly dripping tap in our shower – but it is refusing to repair it as it is in a shower. Dripping taps are covered in my policy documents. Please help.
J.W., Lincolnshire.
Homeserve apologises but says the policy includes a simple 'what is and what isn't covered' image which reveals showers and shower controls are not included.
You can cancel your policy at any time.
***
I retired in July 2024, and my final pension contribution and salary sacrifice of around £2,268 was paid by my company to Aegon.
I tried to move it to my Sipp in September but found out Aegon has received the money but it had not been credited to my account.
At the end of last year it gave me £250 as an apology but it still hasn't added the missing amount to my pension.
Aegon still can't say when my complaint will be dealt with – even one year on. Please help.
S.G., Hampshire.
Aegon says the funds have now been applied to your plan and you have received a £300 goodwill gesture for the delay.
***
My family and I make regular trips from Leeds to Malaga and sometimes buy food and drink on the plane.
Since 2022, the payments have been card only. The menu is priced in euros so I pay with my Spanish bank account.
But when I checked my bank account I was paying more than I thought, so a bottle of water cost €4.10 instead of €3.60. What's happening?
E.V., Leeds.
You were charged in pounds, without your knowledge, on flights to the UK from Spain where the 'local' currency was euros.
You were subject to the airline's exchange rate and your bank would charge you to convert the pounds payment back to euros.
The airline says you can choose to pay in euros.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
Bureaucracy is a spoke in wheel of e-bike revolution
Every day, thousands of Londoners choose to travel by e-bike. Whether for commuting, meeting friends or exploring the capital, e-bikes are opening up green, affordable and accessible cycling to a much wider audience. This demand is borne out in the data. Just last month Forest, the e-bike company I co-founded in 2021, reached a record-breaking 1.5 million rides across London, a 60 per cent increase from last year. While the upsides of getting more people cycling are obvious — it promotes healthier lifestyles, eases congestion and is better for the environment — we are acutely aware of the challenges that come with rising demand. No one benefits from e-bikes cluttering pavements or being parked irresponsibly. We know that. E-bikes should complement London's streets, not complicate them. So, what is the issue? Cities like Oxford and Bristol have one coherent operating area, but London has a tangled web of conflicting rules across different boroughs. One council bans parking in certain areas, another permits it freely. Some impose strict fines, others barely enforce regulations at all. This patchwork means riders are often confused about what they can and can't do. And it undermines public confidence in an otherwise transformative mode of transport. • Cut parking for second cars to make room for e-bikes, says rental firm We need consistency across all boroughs. Without it, we're opening the door to operators more focused on market share than street harmony. We're not advocating for fewer rules, in fact we're calling for more of them. London urgently needs a single regulatory framework. One set of parking standards, one enforcement model, and one operational rulebook should apply from Brent to Bromley. A coherent approach would allow riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling without worrying how to end their journey. Part of the challenge lies in Whitehall. The stalled English Devolution Bill has left London, not to mention other major British cities, without the powers to govern its mobility infrastructure effectively. That must change. Transport for London needs the authority to plan and implement a city-wide strategy across borough boundaries. • Chris Hoy joins e-bike revolution . . . but can 'weekend warriors' catch up? Forest is ready to work with regulators, not around them. We want higher standards, better accountability and smarter city planning. But that future cannot be built one borough at a time. Londoners are ready for a change. Let's give them the infrastructure and clarity they need to use e-bikes safely, confidently and responsibly. One city. One set of rules. Agustin Guilisasti is co-founder and CEO of Forest
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has driven Britain to the brink. Full-blown crisis will soon be upon us
Britain's fiscal reckoning has arrived. The £20bn 'black hole' has, according to one new estimate, doubled in size under Rachel Reeves's dubious stewardship. Most of the money we are now borrowing is going not towards servicing our debt, but the interest on that debt. Colossal off-the-book liabilities, such as public sector pensions, have been hidden from voters by successive governments. They are now falling due. For years, the country has behaved like a household hooked on payday loans. Now, the bills have come through the letterbox and we've no cash left to cover them. Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, traditionally Left-leaning, is warning that if the Chancellor is to remain within her fiscal rules, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51bn. Not even the Office for Budget Responsibility can maintain the fiction that the current trajectory is sustainable. Reductions in spending are out of the question, as the ludicrous welfare row exposed. What many may not realise is that around 75 per cent of government expenditure is mandated – benefits, pensions, for instance – and cannot be avoided in the short-run. Only a quarter is discretionary – areas such as transport, or defence. This means that major spending cuts would require primary legislation, which feckless Labour backbenchers will never swallow. It also means that further tax rises, which Reeves in January insisted would not be necessary, are inevitable. No wonder asset managers are telling clients to prepare for 'very real, very targeted moves on people with portfolios, pensions and property'. Keir Starmer has refused to rule out further tax increases in the autumn Budget. Be afraid, be very afraid. How did we get into this mess? Not since 2001 has a chancellor presented a balanced Budget. Despite lip-service to fiscal probity, the desire to splurge has consistently outweighed the need for restraint. Lord, give me continence, but not yet. Politicians, of whatever stripe, have engaged in a collective delusion: that the Treasury is so awash with cash it is scrambling to find things to spend it on. Pay rises across the public sector? Green subsidies? A pointless railway to Birmingham? Bring it on. But the overall state of the public finances tells a grim story. In 2024-25, the state is projected to spend £1.2tn. Some £450bn of this will go on welfare, health and pensions – more than the entire take from income tax, National Insurance and VAT combined. The UK entered this century with debt at around 30 per cent of GDP; it's now pushing 100 per cent. The tax burden is at a post-War high, set to be around 37.5 per cent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, yet core public services are crumbling and the crowd yells out for more. Polling suggests the public are closer to grasping our fiscal reality than politicians, with economic optimism now half what it was in July 2024. But even growing pessimism isn't enough to slake their thirst for more spending. Some 9.1 million people of working age are currently economically inactive. Over half of households are taking more from the state than they are putting in. As the number of net contributors shrinks, who, exactly, do people believe is footing the bill? More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote: 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence... but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.' Peace is uncertain, the administration of our increasingly wonky justice has time lags measured in years, and taxes increasingly drag us down. Council tax on our homes. The licence fee. VAT on virtually every product we consume. Vehicle Excise Duty. Congestion charges, tolls, Ulez. The sugar tax. A Digital Services tax on any online orders or subscriptions. Income tax. National Insurance Contributions raised for employers, but which in the end the employee will pay. It's enough to drive us to – massively taxed, of course – drink. And the more convoluted the system becomes, the easier it is for governments to mask the scale of the extraction and the harder it is to scrutinise – or object. Taxes should be visible and just. Currently, they are neither. This is not by accident, but design. Worse still, the public has been fed a series of monstrous lies about tax-and-spend. That it is not only necessary for the state to plunder our earnings and assets, but moral. That squeezing the private sector to fund the public mysteriously delivers growth. That the 'rich' aren't paying their 'fair share', despite all the evidence to the contrary. That we could tax the 'wealthy' without punishing the middle classes. Of all Labour's pledges, none has unravelled faster than the self-defeating promise to shield 'working people' from tax hikes. They punished businesses, and since the start of the year, employment is down, unemployment is up, wage growth has stalled and vacancies are falling. They waged war on independent schools, and since January 50 have closed, with all the job casualties that brings. The affluent, as the Telegraph this week reports, have paid their fees in advance – a luxury poorer parents, those who strain every sinew to privately educate their children, cannot afford. The list goes on. Reeves's inheritance tax assault on family farms has triggered the worst collapse in rural businesses since 2017. Non-doms are fleeing almost as fast as small boats are arriving, taking with them billions in tax receipts, spending and investment. Labour said they would deliver the kind of 'growth' that would haul us out of the post-lockdown economic crisis, but are giving us stagnation. Even if they renege their manifesto pledge not to hike income tax, VAT or National Insurance, it might not be enough. There are major structural problems in our economy – a broken planning system, suffocating regulation – to which this Government has no answer. And, at some point, tax takes begin to destroy growth, with one study suggesting each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent. We are completely boxed in. Politically, of course, breaking their tax triple lock would be a disaster. As Professor John Curtice tells me, it could prompt a tuition-fees moment – a betrayal that would be forever etched in the public's memory. Our overall approach to the public finances is self-evidently unsustainable. A retrenchment of state expenditure is coming at some point and the longer we wait the more painful it will be. We've lived in Neverland for too long. It's time to say no, we don't believe in fairies.
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
Bain & Company given £24m of state contracts after UK ban lifted
Bain & Company has been awarded almost £24 million of state contracts since the British government backed down on a ban on the consultancy over alleged state corruption in South Africa. Bain, based in Boston, Massachusetts, and one of the world's biggest management consultancy firms, was given a three-year ban in August 2022 by the Cabinet Office from bidding for government contracts. It was barred over what Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Cabinet Office minister at the time, alleged was 'grave professional misconduct, which renders its integrity questionable'. • Big three consultancies 'rarely worth hiring', say executives The British government's decision followed an inquiry in South Africa into so-called 'state capture' during the presidency of Jacob Zuma, which criticised the role of international firms, including Bain. The company made a legal challenge against the decision of Boris Johnson's government, which it argued was 'based on a flawed process', and pledged to improve its corporate governance. The ban was abruptly lifted in March 2023 after less than eight months; Whitehall sources said a legal challenge could have left the taxpayer with a large bill. An analysis of state contracts by Tussell, the data company, for The Times shows that Bain has since been awarded nine state contracts worth a combined £23.9 million, including with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. Lord Hain, a former Labour minister and anti-apartheid campaigner, who lobbied the Johnson administration and current government over Bain, said he was 'very disappointed' it had received any British state contracts. 'I trust that there will be no more. Just because it's apparently legally not possible to ban them is no reason to award them any government work.' Bain was approached for comment on the UK contracts. A government spokesman said: 'Bain colluded with the former government of South Africa to damage state organisations. Whilst decisions on the exclusion of Bain from bidding for UK government contracts were made by the previous government, the government will take strong action against any future supplier misconduct wherever it is found.' Sources said the MoD contracts were awarded through an existing central government management consultancy framework. The government has new powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action against suppliers involved in misconduct but they are not retrospective. In October Hain wrote to Pat McFadden, minister for intergovernmental relations, urging a fresh ban on contracts. In his response in January, McFadden said that he had requested legal advice on options to extend a ban but was told 'no legal route existed'. Bain was accused of undermining the South African Revenue Service (Sars) through consultancy work that allegedly benefited Mr Zuma's allies. The management consultancy firm, which was founded in 1973 and operates in 40 countries, has said that it has taken 'significant measures' to strengthen its governance for public sector contracts. 'While there were no findings from two official commissions of inquiry of any illegal actions by Bain, we accepted responsibility for the events at that time and repaid all fees, with interest, to Sars.' Earlier this month, Bain said that it was 'winding down' consulting operations in South Africa and that its Johannesburg office will become a services hub supporting Bain's global operations.
