Having spent 3 days trying to access customer services via their BTChat I gave up. Spoke to customer services - got a Sales idiot who assured me they could provide me with BT Infinity at my new address because I was such a valued customer - even though she did not know the postcode that I was moving to - lies and more lies. Spoke to another customer services lady and eventually managed to give notice to terminate my services. Received confirmatory email with details (Order Number: HMNIAZZ05500357406) of what would be charged by way of early termination charges. My BT services cease on 18th October and lo and behold I now receive another bill with yet another cycle of advance line rental and no mention of it being a "Final Bill". Contacted BT Customer services and spoke to highly unhelpful and ignorant woman who tried to impress upon me the fact that the billing cycle is automatic and "no human involvement" is required. Maybe that was why she was so bored...... Outcome - BT may or may not refund the advance line rental charges that they should not be charging (assuming that is that there is actually some form of communication between customer services and billing) OR they just might go on billing me until I die. For 18 months I have had to put up with a package that I can only "upsize" and not "downsize" so effectively they have had 18months worth of payment from me for something I am not able to use. I have had extremely slow internet speeds - pages taking up to 2-3 minutes to load. I have had service outages for which I have still had to pay for the service I was not receiving when they could not be bothered to send a technician to keep an appointment to fix my service. And they wonder why I don't want their crappy service any more!!!! My advice - "Don't touch BT with a barge pole" - they could not give a toss about their customers and their customer service staff - well let's put it this way "It is nice to be paid for a job that you DON'T do"

If you have reasonable cause to believe that this particular assessor will not assess you impartially then I would think that you would be well within your rights to request a different assessor As DWP have agreed that the assessor did not give an "Accurate assessment" of you previously, then it is more than likely that the assessor will know that they were the subject of an appeal on the grounds of inaccuracy and unless they are an "Angel" they most certainly would find it difficult to be impartial. They will flout your personal rights at every turn - in my instance they provided me with a male assessor when it had been agreed that a female assessor would be provided (I am a sexual abuse survivor and will not tolerate strange men touching or being close to me). I had to stand my ground and be very insistent when he insisted that if I refused to be assessed by him, then he would make stop the assessment and make an adverse report that would result in me having all ESA and other benefits stopped. Try again and most certainly record your assessment - it is the only way to avoid the "he said, she said" scenario

Thank you Brigadier for your advice. Result. Advertising Standards took this up this morning. So did Motors.co.uk who did not like the adverse publicity of having over 4000 followers view my tweet. Result - removal from the company's website, the motors.co.uk website, and also from Ebay At last - all this could have been avoided if they had done what was asked of them in the first place and not kept on re-listing it and not been so damned rude - slamming down the phone on me and telling me that they were there to sell cars and not remove stuff from their website. Thank you for your help and I hope this helps someone else because I am sure they are not the only company out there who does this.

A little bit of progress - I guess Motors did not like their 4000 plus twitter followers viewing my tweet Received this morning "Hi, thanks for your tweet. We'll investigate and get back to you "

Thank you - Reported to Advertising Standards Authority, Reported again to EBay - this company relisted my vehicle as "For Sale" today. Twitter messages sent from EBay - highlighting Illegal Advert - Twitter message sent from Motors.co.uk highlighting Illegal Advert - maybe this will get them off their rear ends and the decent thing done. The company concerned have a similar, much older vehicle with very high mileage on it - quite crappy that they are using my vehicle as a "hook" for

At the beginning of November 2012 I bought a Volvo C70 from a second hand dealer in Derby who advertises on Ebay, AutoTrader, Motors.co.uk as do many others. When I had not received the V5 by mid December I went to the DVLA in Shrewsbury with my part of the V5 and applied for one. I discovered at the beginning of this month that the second hand dealership are still actively displaying and advertising my vehicle as "For Sale" through their website, EBay and Motors.co.uk. I have contacted the dealership both via email and telephone and been told "Sure we will stop advertising it" but nothing happens. I have contacted EBay who quite honestly are not interested because they are being paid for the privilege of advertising To the best of my knowledge this kind of advertising practice is "False Advertising" - How can you advertise as "For Sale" something that you do not own, or have physically in your possession to sell. Is there any organisation that I can approach who will get these people to remove my vehicle from their advertising. Thank you

Thank you advice was asked for sarcasm wasn't!!!! Thank you - as I stated before they were notified that there was CCTV footage, but they did not investigate it, which is why I was made a "patsy" out of.

I could do with some advice please... Back in March 2011 I returned to my vehicle from a doctor's appointment to find that a hit and run driver had "T" boned my car damaging the driver's front wing, alloy and door. I asked around but no-one saw or heard anything, so I went across the road to the Police Station and filed an accident report, in order to get an accident number to give to my insurance company. I subsequently contacted Churchill Insurance, my insurers at the time, and informed them that my vehicle had been hit by a hit and run driver. I also informed them that I was not in the vehicle at the time, that there appeared to be no witnesses but that there were CCTV cameras at both ends of the road that would have recorded the incident. At the time Churchill were very helpful and organised a hire car and to have my vehicle (only 6 mths old) repaired. Later that year I sold the vehicle (group 19 insurance) and bought a smaller car with a much lower insurance group (group 6e insurance). When I contacted Churchill to notify them of the change over of vehicle they wanted to charge me an extra £300 plus because I had moved 1 mile down the road into a new postcode area and their excuse. I refused to accept their postcode discrimination and immediately went about sourcing new insurance, which I did find at much less than my original policy. I then cancelled my insurance with Churchill (did not receive any refund on my payment in full of one year's premium). 3 weeks into my new policy, having spent countless hours on the phone to Churchill trying to obtain my proof of NCD, my new insurer's Octagon contacted Churchill on my behalf. I believe that this is something they do not normally do. However when they contacted Churchill, Churchill informed them that I had a "Fault Claim" on my policy. This was news to me as I had never been informed of this and subsequently Octagon said that because I had said "No" to the question on the proposal that asked if I had had an accident that was my fault, that the policy was going to go up by about another £400. In the end I had to cancel that policy and take out a new policy with Octagon - worked out about the same as the previous one but minus the excessive charges for altering the policy. It eventually took Churchill two attempts and 2 months to supply me with proof of NCD. The first NCD letter contained incorrect information, the second was correct in that it stated that I had 9 years NCD, with the NCD Protected and a "Fault Claim". I had in the meantime being trying to ascertain why Churchill did not follow up on the fact that there was CCTV footage that would have shown the parking area where my vehicle was parked and more than likely shown the vehicle that collided with mine, thus enabling them to counterclaim for damages against that driver. No explanation was given to me and despite my protestations that I should not have to be penalised because someone in their Accident/Claims department could not do their job, the outcome was basically "there was no-one else to claim against so the fault automatically becomes yours". Basically I was told to suck it up and get on with life. At the end of August my insurance with Octagon ran out but no new policy was taken out with them as I was added as a named driver on another policy. I requested and received my Proof of NCD from Octagon but on receiving it I found out that Churchill had furnished false information to Octagon regarding the circumstances of my supposed "fault claim". Churchill told Octagon that the claim was lodged as a fault claim against me because "I hit a Third Party in the Rear". Nice one - how do they work that out from a vehicle that has been "T-boned" with no occupants in it by a hit and run driver. Do they employ people to falsify details on their behalf? I contacted Octagon to try to get them to send out a corrected Proof of NCD but as they explained, they cannot do this without first receiving the correct information from Churchill. I have spent the last two days on the phone to Churchill being passed from one person to another. The first person I spoke to in Customer Relations told me he had escalated my query immediately to a top level complaint and told me that I would be receiving £75 in compensation for having to have my insurance the previous year cancelled because of their laxity in releasing my Proof of NCD and also the numerous phone calls I had made to obtain it. He also organised for an enquiry into why Churchill had not acted on the CCTV information and had instead penalised me. He arranged for someone from their Claims department to call me that day who was supposed to be organising for the correct information to be gotten to me in order that I could get Octagon to rectify the Proof of NCD as my partner's insurance company require it and time is now very short for getting it to them. I spoke to someone from their Claims department who was incredibly unhelpful, but who told me that she would arrange for yet another person to call me by lunchtime yesterday to rectify the incorrect information that they supplied to Octagon regarding my "fault claim" on my Proof of NCD No one bothered to follow this up so I contacted them again yesterday afternoon twice, and eventually having spent over 2 hours on the phone to them again, I was informed that the best that they could do was to put in a request to have a variance letter sent to me to furnish to Octagon (this would take 7-10 working days) stating that I had NOT hit a 3rd party up the rear and that in fact my vehicle had been hit by a hit and run driver. The woman from Churchill refused to even contemplate that the "fault claim" could be registered as a "No fault claim" because of the fact that the policy was cancelled. She also could not care less that their laxity and their furnishing false information had resulted in my previous insurers being unable to provide me with the correct Proof of NCD details for the current policy that I am on or that because they can only get information to me "maybe in 7-10 working days" that my partner would stand to lose his motor trader's insurance because of being unable to provide "legally factual" information on my Proof of NCD. I am sorry that this is so long but there is a lot of background information. Basically what I need to know is: If my partner's insurance is invalidated because I cannot provide my "legally factual" Proof of NCD to them can I sue Churchill for providing false information in the first place. This will affect his ability to trade and run his business and also to obtain future Motor Trader's Insurance. Also what recourse do I have for compensation against Churchill for not investigating my accident fully when it was initially reported to them. (I was told that "If we had known about the CCTV footage we would have assigned an investigator"). They were informed of the CCTV and neglected to follow it up with the Police. In fact from conversations with the Police Officer assigned to investigate the report, Churchill did not bother to contact him either. I also requested that they listen to the recording of my conversation with them from March 2011 and from August 2011. Any advice and help that you can give would be gratefully received. Thank you

Thanks for your reply. I contacted Watchdog way back in May when this came to light, but nada... It seems the bigger the company, the more they can get away with (untouchables......) Just like the mobile phone companies who supply your phone number and name to all and sundry under the auspices of "partner companies for marketing purposes"

I recently moved cities and duly completed and paid for redirection of my mail. I assumed that this would all be straightforward however.... a few days ago I received a catalogue in the mail from a company that I have not used for about 5 years (sent to my previous address). This company did not have my previous address, rather one from 5 years ago. Then today I received a letter offering me about £400 in vouchers to spend in DFS addressed to me at my new address. (I have never had any dealings with DFS) On the bottom of their letter they clearly state that they obtained my information from the Royal Mail Redirections Database. Now if you look at the RM Redirections forms, Section 8 - "Use of your Data" has 3 opt-out boxes as follows: 1. Royal Mail Group and other selected organisations would like to send you, by post, offers and information concerning products and services relevant to home movers. If you do not wish to receive these, please mark ''X'' in the box 2. I wish also to recieve such communications in email format. (Please mark ''X'' in the box.) and 3. At no extra cost, we can provide your new contact details (of each type) to organisations that already have your equivalent old contact details so they can update their records. (Such organisations include public bodies.) This may help reduce the risk of ID theft and environmental impact. If you do not want this, please mark ''X'' in the box. I had an extremely heated conversation with a young woman who seemed unable to grasp the concept that my personal information was just that "Personal" and that they had no right whatsoever to disseminate it to other organisations (apart from those legally entitled to it such as DSS, DVLA, Police). However after a 20 minute search amongst the thousands of forms that must have come in within the last 6 weeks, she came back to me and claimed that I had not ticked the boxes to opt out and that therefore they were entitled to pass my information on to whomever they wished. What an interesting concept! Am I to take it that we are no longer protected by the Data Protection Act and that because the Royal Mail is such a large organisation that they are feel exempt from prosecution for abusing their customer's personal information? Nowhere in the above do they make it plain that their intention is to make your information freely available to every company in the country (and probably worldwide too) for their marketing purposes. This is a totally unscrupulous and abusive use of personal data held by them and supposedly protected under the Data Protection Act. I have also written to the CEO of DFS, Ian Filby (sent via email) as his is the name under which the letter was sent requesting a copy of the information that they hold on me and immediate removal of my information from their databases. I have also let them know that should I find that they have subsequently passed on my information whether for "Free" or for "Financial Gain" that I will seek damages. Is there anyone or any organisation that can prevent/act on the little person's behalf to prevent abuse of information such as this? plugin-SocialRedirection-1.pdf

To the best of my knowledge I don't owe Churchill anything. They have never mentioned or invoiced me for any costs to do with my claim (I paid the excess directly from my bank account on collection of my vehicle following repair), nor have I been invoiced for anything else by them. I have in the past 2 weeks made about 6 phonecalls to Churchill each in excess of 20 minutes duration (to 0845 numbers) and have been kept waiting for approximately 10 minutes on each occasion before getting through to totally unhelpful customer service personnel and claims department personnel. I have also contact the Insurance ombudsman (FOS?) who were totally unhelpful and insisted that Churchill had 8 weeks to respond before they would become involved. That unfortunately did not help me, nor could they suggest anyone who could help mediate and assist.

I would be so grateful if anyone could offer any advice that would help resolve this problem. In 2009, I bought a Dodge Caliber (Group 19 insurance) and when my insurance was due for renewal my insurance broker could not come up with a competitive quote so I ran a comparison site query. Churchill Insurance were the best quote that I came up with so I insured my vehicle with them. My previous insurers duly supplied them with proof of my NCB and all went great. In January of this year I received a reminder about renewing my insurance which did not include my years of protected NCB, and had to call the company to confirm details and renew my policy which I did. In March of this year I returned to my car to find that someone had backed into it causing considerable damage and then just driven off. In accordance with my insurance policy, I filled out a Police report and notified my Insurance company who organised for the repairs to be carried out (Fully Comp). What I did not realise and did not find out until last week was that Churchill did not make any attempt to contact the Police force concerned regarding the accident and that they instead just lodged a "Fault" claim against me because they had no-one else to reclaim their losses from. I did not lose my NCB (9+ years) as I had it protected. I have since moved house and sold my car, replacing the Group 19 vehicle with a Group 6 vehicle and on attempting to change the car over on my policy was informed that because I had moved to another postcode, I was going to have to pay a further £250 in premiums for the year, because "the new area was more likely to result in vehicle damage/theft". I complained that making a statement like that was totally discriminatory and informed Churchill that I would be sourcing other insurance quotes which I did and purchased a totally new policy for my new vehicle from Octagon insurance and cancelled my insurance policy with Churchill. On cancellation of my policy I lost 6 months of prepaid insurance premiums, because of the "Fault" claim. I was never informed that this was being lodged against me or that they could not be bothered to investigate/follow up the police accident report. Octagon asked for Proof of NCB which I requested from Churchill on cancellation and in writing when I returned my Policy documents. I have since been lied to on several occasions by representatives of Churchill who have refused to email a copy of my NCB to me, and have supposedly mailed the Proof of NCB to me on August 10th and since then as well. I have not received either mailing. Octagon will not contact Churchill and Churchill will not contact Octagon. Result - my current insurance policy is being cancelled by Octagon and I am now left with a vehicle which I have to re-insure and still fight to obtain proof of NCB from Churchill Why would they do this? Can they withhold my NCB like this and lie to me about posting it. Can I claim compensation for loss of money and the possible future impact on my insurability that will be caused by having my current insurers cancel my policy due to Churchill's obstructive behaviour?