TONY HETHERINGTON: Wizz Air settles customer’s case

Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below.

Ms S.M. writes: Last August 31, I boarded the 4.30pm Wizz Air flight from Larnaca in Cyprus to Gatwick. Two and a half hours later, we were told the flight was cancelled.

I got off the plane, retrieved my luggage, and then found no one from Wizz Air was available. In fact, there were no Wizz Air flights available for eight days. I had to book with BA.

Wizz Air said it would refund my costs for a hotel and the BA ticket, totalling £1,411, but later I was told this was ‘against their policy’ and they have offered €108 (about £95).

Result: Ms S.M. received £1,266 to settle her claim against Wizz Air when it left her stranded in Larnaca last year

Tony Hetherington replies: You are a single mum and this was your first holiday in years, to attend a friend’s wedding. But Wizz Air abandoned you at Larnaca Airport, with no help to get home to your children and your job.

And when you made your own way home, Wizz Air left you hugely out of pocket. It did not even refund the cost of your ticket for the flight that was cancelled. You told me: ‘I do not have that type of money available to just give up, but Wizz Air are impossible to try to claim from.’

You contacted me after I reported that Wizz Air was not just failing to compensate passengers it had let down, but was even failing to pay passengers who had sued it in the county court and won. And the Civil Aviation Authority revealed it was far and away the most complained-about airline in the country.

I asked Wizz Air why nobody was there to offer help when your flight was cancelled. And I asked the airline to explain what it meant when it told you that compensation was ‘based on our policy’. What policy?

I did not get an answer to either question, but you suddenly received a message from the Hungarian-owned airline. It apologised, adding that ‘after reviewing your claim, we came to the conclusion that our resolution of your case was incorrect’.

You told me: ‘I’m in shock. Wizz Air has refunded all of my expenses.’ A total of £1,266 landed in your bank account.

You have not had to sue Wizz Air to get your money, but others are less lucky. The CAA instructed the airline to make County Court Judgment payments a priority, hoping for all such debts to be cleared by the end of January.

I commented at the time that I was not optimistic. I had found 533 CCJs against Wizz Air UK, with 478 listed as unsatisfied. So is the picture any better now? No, it is worse. When I checked court records a few days ago, I found 960 CCJs against the airline, with 865 shown as unsatisfied. The most recent cases show debts of £2,105, £1,621, and £1,550.

Time for the watchdog CAA to step in again, I think, and to bark even louder this time.

Why can’t SSE install a smart meter?

D.C. writes: I rent my brother’s flat and we are currently stuck with SSE – owned by Ovo – constantly saying it will replace our broken gas meter with a new smart meter.

We have now booked ten appointments for the smart meter to be fitted, but each time SSE has cancelled on the day and failed to give us the £25 they promise in these situations.

Reliable?: SSE is owned by Ovo but has failed to replace a broken gas meter

Tony Hetherington replies: On top of the inconvenience of broken appointments, you told me that because the meter is broken you have had to pay estimated bills. You reckon that SSE has been charging you for four times the consumption that was shown before the meter failed.

I asked SSE’s owner – Ovo – to look into what you told me, and staff there quickly contacted you.

You have now told me that, in fact, there were only three broken appointments, and Ovo has now paid £90 into your bank account by way of saying sorry for this.

You have also received a vastly reduced estimated bill which could be reduced further when your new meter is fitted and a clear picture of your average consumption emerges.

WE’RE WATCHING YOU

Last September, I reported how a reader – Ms J.S. – lost a £41,627 inheritance when a cheque made out to her was stolen and then paid into an account at Barclays. The thief had opened an account some months earlier but barely used it. She then simply told Barclays she was changing her name to match the name on the cheque, paid it in, and then withdrew all but a few pounds.

Barclays told Ms S. to contact Action Fraud, but it replied, refusing to investigate on the grounds that it could not see any possible line of enquiry.

This was despite the fact that the bank had a copy of the thief’s driving licence, giving her name and address, and a recent image of her using the bank’s online video service.

I asked Barclays why nobody had noticed that the cheque had been altered with Tippex to erase Ms S’s own bank details and insert the thief’s account number. And I asked why nobody spotted that the thief only changed her name after the date on the cheque. The bank was not happy to give any detailed explanation except to say that it followed its rules.

Well, since then Ms S. has complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service – and she has won her case. The Ombudsman decided that Barclays was negligent in not flagging suspicious activity on the account.

He has ruled: ‘The account was opened with very little activity taking place, followed by an unexpected and uncharacteristic large credit.’

The Ombudsman added that this ‘coupled together with the change of name to that of a different ethnicity two days prior, should have prompted further review.’ And he criticised Barclays for failing to notice that the deed changing the thief’s name was dated after the cheque was written. The bank has now paid Ms S. the full £41,627 plus interest at 8 per cent.

As things stand, the thief and any accomplices have been allowed to keep the stolen money. However, one praiseworthy local policeman is still making enquiries, despite Action Fraud’s rejection of the case. And Ms S. has contacted the Financial Conduct Authority, making the very valid point that it should not be this easy to change the name on a bank account without the same level of checks that are made on a completely new account.

If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email [email protected]. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.