JD Williams sent me the wrong jeans three times - then I got £70 bill for phoning them: SALLY SORTS IT

Daily Mail​

2 days ago

I recently decided to treat myself to a new pair of jeans from JD Williams. They cost £26 and arrived the next day.
I ordered a size 12 but they delivered a size 18. I called the customer service number on the delivery note to arrange a return and reordered the size 12.
The next day a second pair arrived but, again, in size 18. I called the number once more and went through the same process.
The following day a third pair arrived. Another size 18! When I called again, I was advised not to reorder so they could check their stock.
Then I received my mobile phone bill – it was unusually high due to out-of-plan call charges on my contract, so I checked with my network provider. They were billing me £70.72 for the calls I made to JD Williams. This is so unfair.
N.S., Cheltenham.
Readers' champion Sally Hamilton replies: Wallace & Gromit sprang to mind on reading your letter. 'It's the wrong trousers, Gromit! And they've gone wrong.'
The fact they went wrong three times seemed, well, crackers.
Perhaps JD Williams needs a Wallace-style inventor to sort out its stock management system.
But more absurd still was the fact you were facing a phone bill nearly three times the price of your elusive pair of size 12 jeans for calling JD Williams to remedy the mix-up.
Scam Watch
Drivers should beware fake parking tickets impersonating a legitimate parking company or the council, CEL Solicitors warns.
Fraudsters leave a ticket on the windscreen and victims are asked either to scan a QR code or visit a website to make a payment of around £60 to £70.
But it is a fake portal, set up to get your personal and financial details.
Check if the website on the ticket matches the official parking operator's address and look for spelling or format errors. If in doubt, look up the official website of the company or council and contact them.
You told me the three calls totalled one hour and 40 seconds, which you described as 'ridiculous' for organising a simple return. I agree. Not surprisingly, you were stressed at the thought of a £70.72 bill – and still no jeans to show for it.
I was happy to give the company a kick in the pants for you.
I am pleased to say this did the trick and JD Williams' customer service swiftly contacted you to apologise for your poor experience, the hassle you faced and the costs you incurred.
There had been a stock control systems issue, it admitted, which is now resolved. A spokesman said: 'We are replacing the item and dispatching this free of charge, and we have also reimbursed the cost of the calls.'
When we caught up last week, you reported your size 12s had finally arrived – and fitted.
All's well that ends well, that's what I say.
However, your shock phone bill highlights the potential pitfalls when using a mobile to contact a retailer. This didn't cross your mind when you dialled the number printed in bold at the top of your delivery note.
It began with '087', a prefix used by many companies to provide a single national phone number for customers, often for a sales or enquiry line.
The service charge (the charge made by the company with the phone number) typically costs from zero to 13p a minute – 13p in JD Williams' case. But the actual amount billed depends on the access charge made by a customer's phone provider.
Calls to 087 numbers often fall outside the free calls part of a package, as in your case, and are charged per minute or per call at anything from 3p to 93p a minute, depending on the provider. EE's access charge was one of the highest at 89p a minute when you made your calls (it is now 93p a minute).
Your situation wasn't helped by JD Williams including two numbers on its delivery note. The 087 number you used is for orders and payments.
There was also a '0345' number for enquiries. The first attracts a 13p-a-minute service charge. But 0345 numbers are charged like local calls and are included in many customers' mobile call plans – including yours.
You told me the 087 number caught your eye immediately and that you didn't think to look for another. Companies using such prefixes often receive a portion of the revenue made from an access charge. You may not have flinched too much at your phone bill had your calls been dealt with speedily by JD Williams' customer service.
But with more than an hour on the line in total, the price rocketed to a level that couldn't be ignored.
JD Williams is keen to point out there are other options for contacting its customer service that should avoid nasty bills.
In addition to its 0345 number, it offers an online chat service, email or direct messaging via X and Facebook.
It is a pity that customers risk falling into an expensive trap simply because they want to speak to a human about their problem. I'm keen to hear from other readers who unwittingly have been caught out this way, so do drop me a line.
Overpaid my gas bill and can't get a refund
Just before the Easter weekend, I elected to pay off an outstanding £150 debt on my British Gas bill – but accidentally paid £1,500.
I immediately rang to rectify the error, which had cleared out my current account. I was told it would be three to five days before I was paid back.
After Easter, I still had not received the money, so rang again. Once more I was told it would be three to five days. This carried on weekly until a phone call on April 29, where I was told that the person I was speaking to could not authorise a repayment. Help!
D.M., Oldham.
Sally replies: British Gas had held on to your overpayment for more than a month by the time you contacted me and you were struggling financially.
I asked the firm to put more energy into returning your money. It told me you had been given the wrong information about the timescale at the start. You should have been told ten working days for such repayments but also that the large sum involved required special approval.
On my intervention your request was accelerated and a few days later £1,350 was repaid to your credit card – your £1,500 minus the £150 you had intended to pay. BG apologised and sent you a goodwill gesture of £75.
Straight to the point
I run my own business and in December my accountant told me I was due an £821.53 tax refund. In January I checked my HM Revenue and Customs account which said the refund had been made – but I haven't received it. HMRC told me it went to an account in my name but I don't have an account with the bank they claim the refund was made to.
R.N., via email.
Sally replies: HMRC apologises and has refunded you, along with £43.65 in late payment interest. It was previously refunded to an incorrect bank account.
I own a flat which I let out until October last year and have now put up for sale. However, Octopus Energy has continued to send bills totalling £233.76 for an empty property. I paid the first three bills up to January as I know there's a standing charge. I have contacted Octopus many times and they haven't sorted it. But now a letter from a debt collection agency has been posted through the door.
B.C., Kent.
Sally replies: Octopus Energy apologises and has fixed your billing, and you are now £400 in credit. You were billed using estimate readings from previous usage, which was based on when the flat was let.
In March I sold a vintage synthesiser for £500 on an online marketplace and paid a postal firm £39.70 for the delivery and insurance. It was damaged beyond repair when it arrived – the online marketplace has taken back the money from me to refund the buyer – but the delivery company won't pay out as I sent it in a re-used box.
B.B., Nottingham.
Sally replies: The delivery company remains firm. It says as there was a lack of internal packaging and the box was old, the damaged parcel did not meet its criteria for a payout.
Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, 9 Derry Street, London, W8 5HY or email [e-mail] — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.