logo
BT won't cancel my internet and now I've had my MORTGAGE rejected: CRANE ON THE CASE

BT won't cancel my internet and now I've had my MORTGAGE rejected: CRANE ON THE CASE

Daily Mail​a day ago

My girlfriend and I separated in late 2024 and moved out of our shared home.
Ending the BT broadband contract proved ludicrously difficult.
When I called, the person said there was an 'issue with the account' and they couldn't close it. I was put on hold and no one ever came back. This happened at least five more times between December 2024 and February 2025.
In February, I cancelled my direct debit in the hope this would trigger a response from BT. I eventually I got a letter saying my service would be cut off - great.
I called to settle the remaining balance, which was £296 including bills for the months that had elapsed and a fee for cancelling mid-contract. But again, I was told my account couldn't be closed and left hanging on the phone.
Last month, I got a letter saying BT had handed my account to a debt collector. I spoke to BT once more, and it said it would write off the balance as a gesture of goodwill and close the account - but I've since learned that still didn't happen.
I'm now buying my first home, and just have been rejected for a mortgage because of unpaid debts with BT. My credit rating is otherwise excellent. B.S
Helen Crane, This is Money's consumer champion, replies: First things first, I want to call out the telecoms firm for its total incompetence in your case.
It is outrageous that BT's inability to cancel your £33 per month broadband contract led to you being rejected for a mortgage.
You were never told why your account 'couldn't be cancelled'.
You had been more than clear on the phone that you would happily pay the early exit fee, and also pay for the router, which you couldn't return because had got lost in your house move.
This amounted to about £200 - but dismantling a collective life after a break-up is a slog and you just wanted to cross the internet off your to-do list.
BT didn't seem to want to accept your offer, though, and instead gave you the run-around for months.
As you still had a year and a half left on your contract, I do wonder whether leaving people hanging when they phone up is a tactic to prevent them from cancelling.
Cutting off a direct debit without telling the payee first is never advised.
That is because it can lead to situations such as yours, where companies turn to debt collectors and credit ratings are affected.
That said, I completely understand why you did it. For months you'd been paying BT for broadband no one was using, in a home you no longer lived in.
You'd given the company much more than a fair chance to take what you owed, and it had ignored you. It felt like the only way you could get a response.
Somewhere along the way, someone at BT seemed to acknowledge this - as when you called again they agreed to write off your remaining balance as an apology for the way you'd been treated.
But that never happened, and you were stunned to find that this ended up in a failed mortgage application.
I can only imagine how stressful and upsetting that was, especially as you were a first-time buyer. This could have derailed your house purchase, for which you'd diligently saved a £50,000 deposit.
I contacted BT to ask why on earth this happened, and tell it to sort out the mark on your credit report without delay.
Not only could this lose you the home you wanted, but mortgage rates are moving quickly and you could end up locked into a more expensive deal if they began to rise.
I'm glad to say that BT did close your account, waive the debt and contact the relevant credit agencies to remove it from your record.
You have now had a mortgage approved with a new lender, and are on the way to completing on your home.
However, there are two things I still don't think are right. First, BT never explained why it wouldn't close your account, simply sticking to the line that there was 'a problem'.
And second, it only paid you £100 compensation for this ordeal.
It will cost you much more, as you ended up taking a mortgage with a higher rate, as well as an £1,000 arrangement fee.
That said, you were pleased to get it sorted and move on.
A BT spokesman said: 'We're sorry B.S's experience with us fell below the high standards of service we always strive to deliver for our customers.
'We have now cancelled the debt in question on the account and offered him a gesture of goodwill to acknowledge his experience. He is happy his complaint has been resolved, and this has now been closed.'
The mystery of the disappearing John Lewis voucher
In January, my work colleague welcomed his first baby and I organised an office collection to buy him a John Lewis voucher.
I ordered the £120 online gift card to my work email before forwarding it to his.
In April, the colleague told me that he had tried to spend the voucher online, but the balance was zero.
We've both spoken to John Lewis and it said the voucher was spent in February on the purchase of a laptop, in circumstances we thought sounded suspicious.
But we were told John Lewis won't be refunding the balance because this was a case of 'human error'.
We don't understand what that means and I'm sad that the money I collected from my team has been stolen. A.H, West Midlands
Gift grift: The John Lewis voucher this reader gave his colleague was stolen
Helen Crane replies: Working out how someone got their hands on this voucher has been a real puzzle - but one thing that is certain is that this sounds very suspicious.
On one conversation with John Lewis, you learned that the £120 balance from your gift card was then added to an existing gift card, which had collected the balance from four other cards to total a balance of £500.
This was then used to purchase the laptop, which was later returned for a refund.
I have written before about the ways physical gift cards can be hijacked by fraudsters, but accessing the balances of online ones is trickier.
In the case of John Lewis, vouchers are sent to an email account and have a long gift card number and a Pin, which must both be entered to make a purchase online.
One theory is that someone hacked into your colleague's emails, and got the code for the voucher that way. However, you spoke to your employer and there is no evidence of this having happened.
While it is impossible to be certain, you work for a company that holds lots of sensitive data. In the event of a hack, you told me, a stolen John Lewis voucher would be the least of your worries.
There are other possibilities, too. According to Norton Antivirus, computer bots exist which allow fraudsters to exploit the online gift card balance checks used by retailers.
These bots scan the websites for active cards, and can test more than a million card and pin combinations each hour.
Once working combinations are obtained, they can be used by the scammer or sold on the dark web.
This is one of the theories that circulated regarding the Nectar card scam.
If your colleague's voucher was stolen in this way, I'd argue it is a failure of John Lewis' security and you should be paid back.
Frustratingly, when I contacted John Lewis, it refused to confirm how your colleague's gift card account was compromised.
It said: 'We're really sorry to hear about [his] experience. We take security very seriously and have measures in place to protect our gift cards, with each having a unique number and Pin which only the receiver has access to.'
It also said the voucher was delivered to your colleague successfully and that Pins can only be accessed via the receiver's email. John Lewis staff do not have access to these.
It added that when you were initially told the fraud was due to 'human error,' that was not correct.
I then contacted Voucher Express, the company which operates the voucher scheme on behalf of John Lewis and other retailers. It said the matter had already been addressed by John Lewis.
Sadly, it's still not clear what has happened here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all
Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all

The National

time21 minutes ago

  • The National

Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all

The UK Government estimates that annual economic output will be a stunning 0.1% higher by 2040 than it would have been without the India trade deal. In contrast, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) noted in Spring 2023 that Brexit's impact in the long run reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with what we would have had we remained in the EU. The amount gained by the 'landmark' India deal is therefore one-fortieth of the amount lost due to Brexit. READ MORE: UK-India post-Brexit free trade deal agreed after years of negotiation Prime Minister Starmer has described the Indian trade deal as a 'pragmatic' approach to global trade. Such an approach would, however, involve the UK Government restoring frictionless trade with the UK's largest trading partner, the European Union. If the UK Government were looking to deliver a 'pragmatic' approach on the economic front, Sir Keir would be looking to get the UK back into the European single market as soon as possible. This would be far more productive than trying to deliver trade deals with far-off countries and deliver immensely higher economic benefits than the paltry 0.1% generated by the India trade deal. Alex Orr Edinburgh THE world must be having laugh at Starmer as they did with Boris Johnson. Starmer considered he had done well to claim first prize with his Trump deal, being the first in the world to do so. Then along came Joseph Stiglitz, an American Nobel-prize-winning economist, on Laura Kuenssberg's Sunday show stating that Trump's method for changing his business bargaining tariffs is to choose the weakest first, then move on to the other countries, which is indeed what he did with the UK. READ MORE: Scottish care sector chief compares Keir Starmer to Enoch Powell in damning comments Stiglitz was a breath of fresh air in his interview, even stating that Scotland did things differently to Westminster especially where student fees are concerned. Starmer behaved like a school boy bringing an apple for his teacher when he presented Trump with an invitation for tea with King Charles. 'What a pushover', Trump must have thought, 'this guy is gonna be no trouble.' And so it was with Starmer claiming a success story with his 10% tariff in exchange for the 1.8% tariff on UK goods to America. Even more than before Brexit when we were part of the EU market. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife STARMER'S Trump appeasement and grovelling is reaching the point where we're all reaching for the sick bag. Put aside the smarm-fest that was the 'royal' invitation. Put aside the bizarre trade deal, with oligarch-pal and yacht-botherer Peter Mandelson first lapping it up at Trump's left shoulder before looking like a puppet with cut strings when a real reporter (Scottish) pointed out it was all smoke and mirrors. Put aside all the UK's debasement. READ MORE: Police and fire brigade attend fire at Keir Starmer's house I ask again, when is enough going to be enough? Presidential adviser Stephen Miller, creep of creeps, has just announced a possible end to habeas corpus – the foundation stone of the most basic democracies. This follows the deportation of US citizens by ICE and Trump's befuddlement over whether or not he has to 'follow the constitution'. I just wait to see who Westminster will send along to represent Britain (England) at Trump's birthday military parade. Yes – the military parade for the draft dodger who has mocked veterans and banned transgender people from serving in the US military. Might I nominate Tony Blair as the perfect envoy to watch real heroes march by as slimeballs look down from a gold balcony? Amanda Baker Edinburgh I KNOW that modern journalists are generally illiterate about anything to do with religion these days but I would have thought that a journalist for The National would know a little more about the Scottish Catholic Church than shown in your article of May 9 on the election of Pope Leo XIV. The journalist quotes 'international development charity Cafod' about the Pope, obviously oblivious to the fact that this is the aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Scotland's equivalent, Sciaf (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) is ignored, as is any source from the Scottish Catholic Church. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Pope Leo can yield power stronger than political force The Vatican is the only state in the world which recognises Scotland as a separate entity from the rest of the UK. The then Pope Leo XXIII restored the Scottish hierarchy in 1878 and the current Scottish Bishops' Conference was born. The current pontiff has taken the name of Leo because he wants to acknowledge Leo XXIII's first modern Catholic Social Teaching encyclical, Reurum Novarum, which protected the rights of workers at the height of the industrial revolution – a sign that he will follow in the footsteps of Pope Francis. By the way, Sciaf, which transforms the lives of the poor, not making them comfortable in their poverty, is at the top of the recipients of funds for projects from the Scottish Government's overseas development fund (which would be much bigger had we been independent, of course). Please note for the future! Dr Duncan MacLaren KCSG Glasgow Former Director of SCIAF and former Secretary General of the Vatican-based Caritas Internationalis I HAD to laugh about the RBS bank notes article in last Monday's National. For the last two years, the ATM inside the Falkirk branch of the RBS only appears to dispense English bank notes (seven out of seven visits). All part of the anglicisation of Scotland, after the Tories changed the name of the parent company from RBS to the NatWest (National Westminster) Group in 2020? A Wilson Stirlingshire

Ministers on resignation 'watch-list' over welfare reforms
Ministers on resignation 'watch-list' over welfare reforms

Sky News

timean hour ago

  • Sky News

Ministers on resignation 'watch-list' over welfare reforms

A watch-list for potential ministerial resignations over Labour's welfare reforms is in place, Harriet Harman says. Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harman reckons there could be resignations over the matter. While this week's spending review was taking up most of the headlines, the government told their MPs that controversial reforms to disability benefits would go ahead. The measures - headed up by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall - have proved mightily unpopular in Labour circles. More than 100 MPs from government benches are thought to have concerns about the plans to cut nearly £5bn from the welfare bill by restricting personal independence payments (PIP) and the health top-up to Universal Credit. Spiralling welfare costs, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, have been singled out as an area where the government could save money. Sir Keir Starmer has said he wants more people returning to the "dignity" of work. Asked by Beth if resignations could be on the cards, Baroness Harman said: "There might be. But I don't think, not cabinet." She added: "There is people on a watch list at the moment, but not cabinet ministers." A report released by a House of Lords committee earlier this year revealed that around 3.7 million people of working age get health-related benefits, 1.2 million more than before the pandemic. It also found that the government spends more (£65bn as of January) on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. It added that if 400,000 people out of the workforce were able to find employment, it would save the government around £10bn through tax income and lower spending on benefits.

Move faster on firms' public contracts ban, Grenfell survivor urges Government
Move faster on firms' public contracts ban, Grenfell survivor urges Government

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Move faster on firms' public contracts ban, Grenfell survivor urges Government

Efforts to ban companies linked to the Grenfell fire from public contracts must speed up, a survivor of the fire has said ahead of the eighth anniversary. Bereaved and survivors of the blaze will gather on Saturday in west London for the annual commemoration of the disaster which claimed 72 lives. It is likely to be the final anniversary which takes place with the tower still standing in its current form, as demolition work could begin in September. Former tower resident Edward Daffarn, who had previously raised safety concerns and predicted a 'catastrophic event' at the tower seven months before the fire, said this year's memorial will be 'all the more poignant' for that reason. But Mr Daffarn is hopeful a new documentary about the blaze, due to air on Netflix next week, will spur Government efforts to take action against companies linked to fire. He told the PA news agency: 'One thing that this documentary needs to do is it needs to put pressure on the Government to ensure that the companies involved are not able to access public funding, and I'm hoping that this documentary will accelerate that process.' The Cabinet office confirmed in February that seven companies were facing possible bans – cladding firm Arconic, insulation firm Kingspan, former Celotex owners Saint-Gobain, fire inspectors Exova, design and build contractor Rydon, architect Studio E and subcontractor Harley Facades. It is understood investigations were launched into all of them in March, looking into whether any engaged in professional misconduct for the purposes of the Procurement Act 2023, potentially leading them to be debarred from public contracts. No timeline has been given for how long it might be before outcomes are known. The final Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, published in September, concluded victims, bereaved and survivors were 'badly failed' through incompetence, dishonesty and greed. The west London tower block was covered in combustible products because of the 'systematic dishonesty' of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said. He called out 'deliberate and sustained' manipulation of fire-safety testing, misrepresentation of test data and misleading of the market. Mr Daffarn said the documentary will be the first 'that truly exposes and brings into people's living rooms' the 'cowardice of the corporates and how profit was put before people'. He said; 'I hope that people who watch the documentary come to understand that although Grenfell happened eight years ago, there's a lot that still hasn't been resolved and, as a consequence, the companies involved with Grenfell just seem to want to brush everything under the carpet and carry on making money. 'And I think the documentary clearly exposes how little these companies and individuals have been held to account for their roles in Grenfell.' On Government efforts, which Sir Keir Starmer first announced last September, to debar companies, Mr Daffarn said the process is 'too slow' and bereaved and survivors are 'still waiting' for companies to face consequences. He said anyone left angered by the documentary could avoid buying products from companies criticised in the report to 'make sure that those companies understand that there is a consequence of their actions'. Bereaved and survivors have long campaigned for criminal charges to be brought over the disaster. Police and prosecutors have previously said investigators would need until the end of 2025 to complete their inquiry, with final decisions on potential criminal charges by the end of 2026. The near 10-year wait for justice has been described by families as 'unbearable'. The decision to bring the tower block down was confirmed earlier this year and prompted mixed reaction, with some people feeling their views had not been properly taken into consideration. Sharing his own opinion, and acknowledging the difficulty others feel in seeing the tower regularly, Mr Daffarn said: 'I think the anniversary is made all the more poignant by the fact that this is the last time that we will meet with the tower in situ. 'We haven't got justice yet. It feels wrong to be pulling the tower down while so much remains unresolved.' The Government said while some had hoped the building could remain in place as a reminder of what happened, others had reported this would be 'too painful'. The demolition process is expected to take around two years. A Government spokesperson said: 'As we approach the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, our thoughts remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community. 'This government remains committed to ensuring that what happened at Grenfell is never forgotten, and to delivering the change needed so it can never happen again.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store