TalkTalk Don't Get Done Get Dom

I've been fighting your consumer battles for years.

But there are still many companies trying to get one over on you.

They don't care. As long as the cash register is going ching, ching, ching, that is all they care about.

Thousands of you are still subject to an array of unfair treatment.

From poor customer service to hidden small print and faulty products.

What can we do? Make a complaint, maybe,

that will get lost in the telecommunications abyss?

These companies simply don't seem to care and are causing you,

the consumer, a lot of unnecessary stress.

But never fear.

I'll take on your consumer battles to make sure you don't get done.

And coming up on today's show:

one man's insistence he DIDN'T TalkTalk.

The bill looked so ridiculous. It had dozens and dozens of calls to Jamaica,

to mobile numbers I don't recognise.

We find out some shocking truths about those

protecting your home from damp.

He had taken over £3 million from homeowners

and hard-working individuals for work that was either completely unnecessary,

or was done to an extremely poor standard.

And we hit the streets to see

if you know your sales of goods from your sold as seens.

-Wow!

-That is very interesting.

There's some great things have come out of Bristol city - Ribena, plimsolls...

It is where Concorde was designed

and it is also where the Queen made the first long-distance direct dial phone call -

from here, Telephone Avenue.

Good morning, your Majesty, if you are watching.

So, it was a royal digit that revolutionised the telephone industry.

But sadly, not everyone in Bristol

is as happy about their long-distance phone calls.

And one such man is Alan Polden

who moved into his flat in February 2009

and decided to stay with his existing telephone provider, TalkTalk.

TalkTalk sent a BT Openreach engineer to connect me,

and then the line was activated on 30 April.

But things went badly from the start.

While TalkTalk attempted to get Alan up and running in his new home,

a catalogue of errors ensued.

After being connected for a week, I was cut off for a week.

Then I was cut off for bills I had paid in full.

But these troubles were nothing compared to what was about to land on Alan's doormat.

The next big problem with TalkTalk was the 6th August bill.

The bill looked so ridiculous. It had dozens and dozens of calls to Jamaica,

to mobile numbers I don't recognise.

I never phone mobile numbers from a landline, because it's expensive.

I just phone from pay-as-you-go.

His bill was for £77.34,

which was nearly four times as much as Alan's bills normally were.

I phoned up TalkTalk, fully assuming

they would be able to sort this out reasonably easily.

After being passed around lots of different departments,

they eventually agreed to strike the bill of 6th August in full and add £50 credit.

Good on you, Alan, a right little consumer champion.

But unfortunately, that was only the first battle over.

My next bill is the 6th September bill

for which not only does the previous stricken bill of 6 August reappear,

but dozens and dozens more calls

to numbers I don't recognise in Jamaica and some mobile numbers.

Mystery calls to mobiles and Jamaica?

Alan was livid and did not feel that TalkTalk were doing enough.

Their response was that they conducted an examination of raw data

and sent out a telephone engineer to check the integrity of my line.

They then said that there was no possibility of fraud and I was liable.

I can't say how these numbers have occurred

but I know that I didn't make them. They were not made from inside my flat,

no-one else made them.

So we have to look at other possibilities

of how this could have occurred, one of which is billing error.

The other one is fraud.

Alan says he didn't make the calls and TalkTalk say that he did.

With no-one backing down, the bills just kept going up.

The last letter from a debt recovery agency that I received,

was for £614.

There would be absolutely no way I could pay that at all.

That is one battle with one very large phone operator

about one very large phone bill,

itemising dozens of calls Alan is adamant he didn't make.

One call Alan did make, however, was to me.

So I have come to Bristol to see if I can get to the bottom of his problems.

-Alan, good morning.

-Hello.

-How are you?

-Fine, thank you.

Step out here, young man. Let's make the most of the sunshine while it's here.

'Firstly, I always like to give all parties the benefit of the doubt.

'So I need to clear a few things up.'

It's the obvious thing for me to ask here,

do you know anybody who lives in Jamaica?

-No.

-Have you ever been there?

-No, never had a passport.

-None of your friends Jamaican?

-No.

-So there's absolutely no connection at all?

-No.

So what did TalkTalk say about that?

They said that they have conducted an internal investigation

and looked at the raw data and I am liable.

-Are you happy with that as a response?

-No.

-Why not?

Because I know that I did not make those calls

and nobody else has had access to the phone over the period.

I have got my own front door,

only I have got the keys. It is a small flat.

If anyone was making phone calls, I'd know about it.

Now, I know TalkTalk sent an engineer out.

But I am intrigued as to what extent they investigated.

I asked the telephone engineer, what are you checking?

He checked from my phone socket to the local telephone exchange.

-So we are talking about from upstairs...

-Yes.

-In your flat, to the local exchange here,

which normally has a distance of about half a mile maximum-ish.

With no evidence of tampering or untoward activity found,

and TalkTalk saying Alan had to pay for the calls,

he sought help from numerous different sources, even before me!

I went to my local police station with my bills

and suggested that there could be fraud.

They admitted that the distribution

and number of calls was suspicious, but they couldn't investigate the matter

unless the phone company or the ombudsman asked them to.

In October 2009, Alan wrote to Otelo,

the ombudsman for the communications industry.

They accepted on face value any statements by TalkTalk.

It was beyond their remit to investigate fraud.

So, based on TalkTalk's report,

Otelo concluded that Alan was liable for the calls.

I tried to contact the media, I contacted my MP,

various solicitors, National Debtline, Consumer Direct,

none of these people could investigate it. Then who?

It sounds like I might be Alan's last chance to try to settle

this final debt collection bill of £614.34.

-Could you afford to pay that, if push came to shove?

-No.

OK. Hence the reason you are disputing it.

-It is not yours, and you don't have the money.

-No.

But you are happy to pay calls that you made,

but not in relation to this particular bill.

Yes, for the period that TalkTalk was actually providing me with a phone service, yes.

Right. Now, that sounds interesting. Expand on that, tell me what has happened?

As soon as Otelo gave the final judgement,

they cut me off on the 24th March 2010,

but they were still billing me for a call package, about 23 quid a month,

between 24th of March 2010 and 8th of November 2010.

-You are talking about at least eight months, at £25, £23 a month?

-Yes.

-Which is nearly 200 quid on top?

-Yes.

-But you were disconnected?

I could get incoming calls, but I had no internet and I could make no outgoing calls.

And in your £23 a month package, you should have had internet and outgoing calls as well?

-And free evening and weekends.

-What do you think of TalkTalk and the way they have handled this?

They have gone out of their way to make things as difficult as possible.

This is quite a simple issue where

there was a very unusual call pattern to numbers that are not itemised

in my bills before or after these periods, which looked suspicious. Very odd.

Calls at all times of the day or night, to Jamaica,

and they should have looked at that bill and gone, this is not my normal call pattern. It looks suspicious.

I'm a bit worried that it is been going on for two years, and it is still going on.

-I'll see what I can do.

-Thank you.

I'm particularly concerned about Alan's case and this is the reason why.

He is adamant that he has not made those phone calls

and he has tried absolutely everything to resolve the situation himself.

He spoke to TalkTalk, he has been to the ombudsman,

he has been to the police, he has even involved his local MP.

Now he is trying me and I am his last chance.

I really don't want to let him down.

Now, regarding the disappointing customer service Alan experienced,

other consumers have felt the same.

According to telecoms regulator Ofcom, for two years straight,

TalkTalk have been the most complained about telecoms provider

and lost 43,000 customers

in three months last year as a result of bad service.

I hope I am one of the lucky ones, as it is time to get cracking on Alan's case.

Right, time to make my first call to TalkTalk.

One of the first things I do,

whenever I see a company has got 0870 numbers, profit-sharing numbers, I don't use them.

So let's get an alternative number from the internet, which you can do.

Non-geographic numbers are much more expensive than standard calls,

so I avoid them at all costs. Here we go.

A whole list of numbers.

DIALLING

'We are currently experiencing high call volumes

'which may result in a delay in answering your call.'

This is what gets me about these communication companies.

You wait ages for a call to be answered. There's very little communication.

It happens time and time again.

I might have found a cheaper number, but it is nearly 10 minutes till I finally get through

to what I have been told is the right department.

Good afternoon, you are through to TalkTalk customer service. How can I help?

Hi there, good afternoon.

My name is Dominic Littlewood and I'm calling from the BBC.

I'm phoning on behalf of one of your customers who has a query with his bill

and I wondered if you could tell me if I'm speaking to the right department,

or point me in the right direction, please.

No, you are through to the right department. You are through to customer service.

I explained that I'm taking on Alan's case

and although I have his written permission, they tell me Alan has to call himself first,

and they won't give out company e-mail addresses.

What is your surname please, could you spell it for me?

Er, we can't give the surname.

Right, so do you give an extension number, or any way of identifying you?

There is only one phone line for this call to India.

Do you have a direct dial number to come through to you?

No, we don't have. The call can land anywhere.

So, if I phone up this call centre my call could land on at least 100 different desks?

The call can land anywhere - to India, to Philippines, to South Africa. Anywhere.

So it could go to the Philippines, South Africa, or India?

So how do I get to speak to somebody a second time?

No, the call can land anywhere.

How can I speak to somebody once, and then call them back? Can you tell me that?

No, there is no possibility that I will be taking up your call again.

-OK. So it can't be done? OK.

-No, it can't be done.

So every single time I phone, I have to speak to somebody,

and they could be hundreds of different people,

I have to explain the whole situation again, is that correct?

Yes, you are correct.

-OK, you can't help me any more. Thank you for your time.

-Thank you for calling TalkTalk.

What a pathetic situation!

That is a communication company who say that if you want to speak to me again, you'd have to ring.

It could go to Philippines, South Africa, or India.

There are hundreds of people who might pick the phone up

but I can't give you my surname and you can't come through to me.

It's a game of luck.

It's just the beginning of my TalkTalk journey

and my luck is in short supply when it comes to this case.

HE SOBS

TalkTalk, they won't talk talk.

Oh, no.

Birmingham, the second most populated city in the UK.

But how much do you, the residents of this wonderful city, know about consumer law?

What kind of knowledge do you have about right, refunds and regulations?

My researchers are in Birmingham city centre to find out

how much the average consumer knows about their entitlement when it comes to buying goods and services.

First question:

"You had your house decorated three weeks ago by a professional

"but the wallpaper is already starting to peel away.

"You complain to the decorators but they explain that the wallpaper was done by another company

"that they employed and you should complain to them. What do you do?"

Surely if you get them to do it,

aren't they responsible for the whole package?

I'd go to the company I originally took out the contract with.

I believe if I took it out with them,

they are responsible at the end of the day.

It may be the first company's fault.

Good stuff, with three right answers there.

If a trader uses subcontractors, they are responsible

for the subcontractors' actions and workmanship.

The trader you contracted must arrange to have the problems fixed.

Any claim you have will be against them, not the subbies.

Next up:

"You have new windows fitted and the joiner says you can pay him in instalments.

"You inform him that next month you will be making a late payment

"and he sends you an invoice adding interest to your bill. Can he do this?"

I don't think you can do that without it having been in the contract.

I don't know, if you are making a late payment,

that happens with your mortgage, doesn't it, so probably yes.

Not sure, I'm going to say yes.

Since April 2002, businesses have been able to charge 8% above the base rate

on the day a debt becomes overdue.

They are not obliged to tell you in advance of their intention to charge a late payment.

And they do not have to mention it in their contract.

Cool. Well, not cool, actually, but...

Yup. Be careful of that one.

Next up:

"You cancel a holiday two days before you fly

"because your mother goes into hospital for an illness she has been suffering from.

"Can you claim a refund on your holiday from your insurers?"

Yes. You can, can you? I say yes.

-I think that's quite a valid reason, personally.

-Yes.

Because it's an existing illness and it's two days before, you probably can't claim.

She is correct. But the only one!

You have to inform your insurance company if the holiday may be affected

by the illness or death of someone close to you.

As the person has an underlying condition which you haven't disclosed,

the insurer would be unlikely to pay out.

-You wouldn't think of that!

-What if you didn't know.

-Yeah. Wow, that's very interesting.

Interesting, indeed.

To stop being burned while not on holiday,

always read insurance terms and conditions.

So that's another successful day out educating you consumers so you don't get done.

Earlier on, I met Alan Polden from Bristol

who has had trouble with telephone provider TalkTalk

in the form of numerous calls abroad and to mobiles which Alan is adamant he didn't make.

I've never been abroad, never had a passport, why would I call Jamaica?

Following a technical check, TalkTalk and Otelo,

the ombudsman, concluded that Alan must have made the calls

and TalkTalk have cut off his outgoing service,

yet continued to charge him for it.

My first call to TalkTalk demonstrated that

their customer service department are a nightmare to deal with.

Every single time I phone, I have to speak to somebody,

and they could be hundreds of different people I have to explain the whole situation to again,

-is that correct?

-Yes, you are correct.

So I have certainly got my work cut out.

And Alan is stuck with a huge bill of £614.34.

One of the most disturbing things about Alan's case is the fact

that so many people have tried to help him and failed.

But you know what? That's just the sort of challenge I thrive on.

Now, you have got to remember that ridiculous phone conversation I had

with that person when I was banging my head against a wall.

I have done some homework now and managed to get somebody in the UK!

Ooh! Just that is what I needed. And now I'm going to make a first phone call to him.

DIALLING

PHONE RINGS

'Hello. Cisco Unity Connection messaging system.

'Sorry, the operator is not available.'

HE SOBS

TalkTalk don't want to talk talk. Oh, no. I'm going to try again.

DIALLING

PHONE RINGS

'This time, someone picks up.' Oh, hi. It's Dominic Littlewood calling from the BBC.

There is a couple of things I need to request at the moment.

'Almost immediately, I hit another roadblock.'

It seems ludicrous that you don't want to give me your contact details

so that I can send you details of what I'm investigating.

TalkTalk is a communications company. You don't seem to want to communicate.

'So just like during my first call to TalkTalk,

'the person refuses to give me his contact details. What is this, company policy?'

I want to use some language now which...

I'm not allowed to on telly. TalkTalk, communications company?

Absolutely, total different ends of the spectrum.

That guy wouldn't even give me an e-mail address.

He said I need to have consent from Alan Polden saying that you can deal with this problem.

I said, fine, I've got it. I will e-mail it through.

He wouldn't even give me an e-mail address.

But I got the name of the CEO of TalkTalk

and now I'm going to send it directly through to her. That'll put a cat amongst the pigeons.

After at least being given the CEO's details by the person at TalkTalk,

I send a strongly worded e-mail to her, asking many questions.

But the main one is why, when Alan reported these Jamaican calls

were fraudulent, did they allow them to carry on happening?

Well, the e-mail seems to have had the right effect because within hours,

I am sent the number of a senior member of the CEO's office, Mark Schmid,

and I'm able to put forward some questions.

My first relates to the engineer's investigation TalkTalk commissioned.

That report, obviously Mr Polden hasn't seen it,

we have not seen it, could we have a copy?

I haven't seen that, either. But I will go away and ask that question.

Next question, their handling of Alan's case.

You have a duty of care, as far as I'm concerned,

to say, "We will block these calls, are you happy for us to do so?"

He says, "Yes, I'm not making them, please do so."

Then you're investigating a matter which is £77-odd.

Not, now, £614, because it has spiralled out of control.

And nearly a third of Alan's total bill is for a call package

when he didn't even have an outgoing service.

I don't believe TalkTalk have done a particularly good job there.

Bye-bye.

Both barrels. TalkTalk. Ooh, I just want to say so much!

Anyhow, what I have said is right. Mr Polden reported it as fraud.

Stop the calls, end of problem. Right, now let's investigate.

Not let's investigate, let his bill go really high and then bill him for it, and disconnect him!

It's no wonder Alan is so upset with TalkTalk.

In the three years since this dispute,

they have given him absolutely nothing.

So it's no wonder that Ofcom have named TalkTalk as the most

complained about telecoms company in the whole of the UK.

My research reveals that the TalkTalk group, founded in 2003,

provide telephone, TV and broadband services to the UK.

But unfortunately, of late,

consumers are talk talking about them for all the wrong reasons.

Telecoms regulator Ofcom have fined them

£1.5 million for incorrectly billing

tens of thousands of consumers for services they had not received.

With a track record like this, I'm even more worried about Alan's case.

It's been over a week since I put my questions to TalkTalk.

One of my queries is why they didn't stop the suspected fraudulent calls

from being made as soon as Alan reported them.

Oh, hi, is that Mark?

And finally, it seems Mark from the CEO's office has got some answers for me.

We can't apply a bar to stop a customer calling a specific country

or indeed a specific number.

If somebody phones you up with a suspected fraud on their line,

and Alan Polden is adamant that this is fraud,

would you automatically offer somebody the option of having

that line disconnected and reissuing them with a new number?

Just so that it would nip the problem in the bud?

-Is that something you'd automatically do?

-We don't, no.

Do you not think it would be a good idea to have that as an option

and see what people would like to do about that?

Well, I'm certainly happy to say that that is something that

I will feed back to our billing team.

It goes back to that same old thing, Mark. About the duty of care.

Although Mark is willing to consider my point,

TalkTalk are convinced their engineer's report is correct and this isn't fraud.

They also say that they have acted in line with the industry guidelines

so we have arranged an interview with Ofcom, the communications regulator,

to see if they can shed any light on the situation.

Now, let's make sure that Alan has done everything the right way.

If a customer feels they have been charged for calls they haven't made,

then first of all, they should complain

to their communications provider.

Because there are rules which say that providers can only send bills

for calls that have been made.

OK. So Alan has done things by the book.

But whether his bills are accurate

is questionable, because as we know,

TalkTalk have been fined by Ofcom for incorrectly billing their customers.

I mean, just how safe are these phone systems?

The networks generally are secure

and there are rules that providers have to take reasonable steps

to make sure that their networks are secure and resilient.

Clearly it is in their own interest to make sure that their networks are secure.

It might be in their interest to maintain a safe system,

but on the other hand, I can't see providers wanting to tell

customers their phone lines can be hacked or intercepted, either.

People would be worried out of their mind.

We have had complaints in the past, but only very few and of those,

only one has ever really been substantiated.

So it is not an area that we are aware of as a particular problem.

OK. So it might be a small problem.

But if, like Alan, you are convinced there has been fraud on your line,

it doesn't mean telecoms providers or the industry regulators

should ignore the complaints.

Ofcom and Otelo say it is out of their remit to investigate fraud,

but I think it would help if they would at least acknowledge the possibility of fraud

to encourage providers to do more checks.

Now TalkTalk are telling me

that they got BT Openreach to check the line and make sure that no-one had tampered with it.

I'd like to think that BT and TalkTalk have done this properly.

I mean, after all, surely all their little boxes are nice and safe and locked up?

A bit like this one.

Just walking down the street, I've seen evidence that checking

a line might not be as straightforward as TalkTalk led Alan to believe.

Let's face it, I'm not an expert, so I need to speak to someone who is.

Terry Lockwood is a consultant whose job it is to help businesses

with problems in the telecoms field.

How reliable can TalkTalk's investigation really be?

There are many, many access points between the point at which

a consumer or a company

makes a call, and the ultimate destination.

So when we are looking at the potential for access,

there are so many points where a line can be broken into

or a circuit can be accessed.

If we are looking to an engineer to tell us

whether something has happened in the past,

extremely difficult to do that,

because somebody could potentially break a circuit

and then when he has finished that operation, he simply packs

everything up, reconnects the line as it was, and no-one could ever tell.

It seems hacking or interception are definite possibilities

but not the only thing that suggests something dodgy might have happened to Alan's phone line.

When we are looking at fraud

and we're looking at the bill for a particular account,

we may see particular blocks of activity.

Repeated calls to the same overseas numbers, for instance.

Repeated calls to a specific type of number.

These are the kind of things which indicate,

especially, of course, as in this case,

where there is no previous history of these destinations being called.

We would always look at that and think there was something unusual going on.

OK. But it surprises me that if fraud is possible,

TalkTalk haven't done a more detailed investigation.

The reason that telephone companies would be reluctant to admit

telecom fraud is because we are all interested in retaining the credibility of our industry.

TalkTalk might not want to admit their network may be insecure

which isn't very fair to the consumer.

So I'm really interested in what the legal line might be on this,

as, in my book, Alan should be innocent until proven guilty.

When it comes to the legal standpoint it's very, very difficult

to actually say who is right and who is wrong.

Um... There are people who will make calls

and who will try to avoid paying for them.

There are carriers who will make errors

and try and apply those errors to billing in the normal way

or try to deny that the errors have been made.

So when it comes down to legal right and wrong,

it will always depend on what happens on the day in court,

if it ever comes to court.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

And, as I suspected, Terry confirms there are a multitude of different ways

Alan's phone line could have been hacked or intercepted

and it's unlikely TalkTalk will admit to weaknesses in their system.

TalkTalk's report might be inconclusive,

but I want to see with my own eyes how thorough they have been

and that is what I'm about to tell them.

Something I wanted to double check with you.

When you said that your industry got BT Openreach to check these lines,

they only go as far as the exchange boxes, am I correct in saying that?

'I am told TalkTalk only request a check from the premises

'to the telephone exchange.

'And they still can't produce the report,

'so I don't even know how detailed the check was.'

You see, there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions here.

The main one for Alan as far as he is concerned is

who has made these calls and why is he getting the blame, when it wasn't him?

As it stands at the moment, I might be stating the obvious here,

but let me just put it plainly, are you going to cancel his bill,

-as far as he's concerned?

-No.

-No.

I am disappointed they won't budge.

But I still think their duty of care has been lacking. As we discovered earlier from our telecoms expert,

TalkTalk can't rely on their engineer's report as proof that fraud hasn't happened.

Plus, Alan had no outgoing service for eight months

that he is still being billed for.

And other problems when he first joined.

What I would say is, don't forget that you did accuse this guy

of not paying his bills on time.

He had his phone line disconnected and he did pay them,

so TalkTalk have let him down on that side of things, haven't they?

They recognise they could have acted in a better way at times

and I get an apology.

But it's Alan they should be apologising to.

Bye-bye.

Well, TalkTalk have said no no.

But I did say at that point, what about just giving him half the money back?

Because, after all, you did disconnect him when you shouldn't have done

and he has paid his bills on time, so there was an error on your behalf.

And he said, OK, we will chew it over.

I haven't got a clue. It's a flip of a coin.

Wouldn't we all like to know what goes on inside the mind of dodgy traders?

You know, get a little insight into how they all work?

Well, step forward today's whistleblower.

Watch this, because it's going to be very interesting.

Today, we are looking at what can go wrong

when you get a tradesperson in to protect your home from damp.

To prevent moisture from rotting your walls,

you get a specialist in to protect your interior spaces.

But unfortunately, some of these contractors are more likely to make your stress levels rise,

than sort out your rising damp.

And they will take your money in the meantime.

My insider has worked in the damp proofing industry for 26 years.

And he has seen shocking evidence of consumers being taken

for a ride by dodgy workers set to make a mess of your mould.

We have protected his identity to provide a safe environment for his expose.

DISTORTED VOICE: This is an industry that is very close to my heart,

something that has supported me for all my working life

and it makes me very cross to think that there are people

operating without scruples, ripping off members of the public.

And my insider knows immediately how to tell the good from the ugly.

A good damp proofing contractor should come out and look at the property

and do a thorough investigation and inspection.

That should lead to the generation of a report that makes sense,

that's clear, that's concise.

And, of course, the last element is that he should also send out

people to do the work that are skilled and know what they are doing

and have the equipment to do the job correctly.

All too often, there are people out there that fail on one or all of those counts.

And bad practice starts right on your front porch.

One thing that people should be aware of is anybody who knocks on the door,

reporting to be doing surveys in the area, or drops leaflets through the door,

saying that they are doing free damp surveys -

they generally have no great concern for actually finding problems.

What they are looking for is work.

Anybody that approaches you in that sort of direct and aggressive way

has probably not got the consumer's best interest at heart.

They may use unskilled labour.

That means the guys on site don't know really what they are doing.

So the job doesn't get done well.

He has come across some pretty horrific cases in his time.

One recently was a lady who had fallen victim to a doorstep seller.

She had spent £3,500 of her hard-earned money

and her savings on a series of holes around the bottom of the house.

There is no evidence to suggest she had a problem.

There was no evidence to suggest anything had been even put into the walls.

They did all the work from the outside and were in and out of the house in less than two hours.

The other thing that can happen is that good materials cost money.

So it is tempting for some to cut their costs by using inferior materials.

That can lead to additional moisture transfers, salt damage, and damp problems coming back.

You also get people that use electronic moisture meters incorrectly

and try and show clients that they have damp problems which really don't exist.

In fact, they trick the meters, or use them in a gas in an unscrupulous way

to try and show that there is a problem when there isn't.

The biggest profile case was a chap that had been operating a company up in the north-west of England.

The investigation and the subsequent court case found that he had taken

over £3 million from homeowners

and hard-working individuals for work that was either completely unnecessary

or was done to an extremely poor standard.

So here's my insider's tips to prevent being

deceived by your damp proof contractor.

Research their details thoroughly.

First of all, has this company got any sort of trading record?

Do they have a landline? Do they have a trading address? Get a reference.

Ask him where he has been and ask to speak to some of his previous clients

and learn from their experiences.

They should be a member of the PCA, the Property Care Association.

That's an organisation that writes the standard for the industry.

Be happy that what you are paying is the right amount.

Simply getting a number of quotations,

a number of different prices and opinions on the job

certainly will improve your chances of getting good work at good rates.

Educate yourself a bit on the topic.

Understand what you are buying.

It's very important that the contractor that's doing the work

or that you choose can explain to you exactly what they are doing

and why they are doing it.

It's straightforward stuff.

If you don't understand it, they probably won't.

And good contractors will have the time and the patience

and the skill to be able to make you understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.

So there you have it.

My industry insider's advice to stop your damp problem being

rotten in more ways than one.

This expert knowledge should mean next time, you don't get done.

For weeks, I have been investigating the case of Alan Polden,

a TalkTalk customer who has dozens of international calls on his landline bill

which he is 100% sure he hasn't made.

TalkTalk have checked the phone line and say there was no evidence of fraud.

But my telecoms expert explained

that although the provider might not want to admit it, it is definitely possible

that Alan's phone line may have been compromised.

There have been cases I know where

local BT junction boxes have been broken into.

As it stands, Alan has to pay £614.34

and a large chunk of that bill is for a call package

when Alan didn't even have an outgoing service.

Last time I spoke to TalkTalk, I expressed my concern

and suggested compensation might be due.

And I'm about to find out the response from Mark in the CEO's office.

Right, Mark. You know the reason I was calling, just to see if there was any news...

'Mark tells me that within Alan's bills are undisputed calls that Alan has made.

'And if he pays for them, they will offer a goodwill gesture.'

Isn't that saying if he pays you the bill, the outstanding bill,

for all the calls he is not disputing,

you are going to wipe the ones that he is disputing?

Is that the same thing you are saying?

'It's looking like I might be onto a winner here.

'But the line rental charges on Alan's bill

'for the eight months he couldn't dial out are still up for grabs.

'One battle at a time, I think.'

I'm fairly certain I can get Alan to pay the undisputed amounts without any problems,

on the understanding that you are prepared to offer,

as a gesture of goodwill, that the disputed amounts be wiped.

Now, what will Alan think when I deliver the news I have got for him at this stage of the dispute?

Right, I'm back in Bristol to meet Alan.

I've got some news for him, but unfortunately, it is not as good as I'd like it to be.

Alan, good to see you again. How are you doing, you all right?

-OK.

-OK, TalkTalk.

This is what I've managed to negotiate for you.

At the moment, your bill stands at £614.34 and a large chunk of that

-are these disputed calls to Jamaica and mobile numbers.

-Yes.

How would you feel now, if I said to you that I've got TalkTalk

to agree to scrub the bills that are disputed?

Would you be happy?

Yes, apart from the bill where I have been charged for eight months when I didn't get a phone service.

-OK.

-I'm glad that you have got so far,

when nobody has got anywhere with them at all.

I'm quite impressed with that.

But in the end, it is TalkTalk, after over two years,

they have moved a tiny bit.

And they are still insisting on trying to charge for eight months

when I could only get incoming calls.

They really haven't moved enough.

Um... So I can't come to a snap judgement.

I will have to go away and take advice on

whether to go to court or whether to pay the undisputed amount.

-I am still battling with them.

-Sure.

-It's not over yet.

-Sure.

If I can get that eight months wiped, would you be happy?

-Yes, I think so.

-You would put it to bed?

-Yes.

-OK. I'll have another go.

I needed to hear that from you, so I knew where I stood.

I will try again and make some more phone calls

and I will have a last-ditch attempt.

And I'll let you know how I get on with that.

-Thank you.

-If I fail, the ball is in your court.

-Yes.

-So you have got some movement, but not quite enough.

-Yes. Thank you.

Keep smiling, because it's not over yet, Alan.

Alan is not backing down on this one,

and is even willing to take this to court if he has to.

But he shouldn't have to as I think it boils down to the fact

that TalkTalk should have stopped this fiasco back in August 2009 before it escalated.

It's time for one last call to TalkTalk.

I told him the news about these disputed bills,

he is over the moon with that and he hasn't got a question in the world about paying bills

which he thinks he is responsible for.

But, and this is the big but, while this dispute was going on,

for eight months, he didn't get his broadband

and he wasn't able to make any outgoing calls.

He had a landline which would only receive incoming calls.

But I can totally understand why he doesn't feel

he should be paying for this, the landline charges.

It was £23 a month for eight months, according to him.

So, for the last time, Mark Schmid goes away to ponder over our final proposal.

And I wait on tenterhooks, in the hope that I will get good news for Alan.

Finally, four days later, the news arrives.

Been going on for three years, it's about time we put this case to bed.

-Alan, hello again. How are you, buddy, all right?

-Yes, thank you. Cheers, yeah.

'It's the moment of truth in this long-running battle.'

-I negotiate more and more on your behalf. Now listen. This is the outcome.

-Sure.

TalkTalk have said that they are not going to charge you

for the disputed calls. You know about that from our last visit.

-They are also not going to charge you for those months line rental.

-Right.

-That means

the only bill that is left is the undisputed amount, the calls that you have made.

They have dropped the bill down now, just that amount. £158.36.

I'm impressed. Nobody has got anywhere - police, MP, everywhere.

Nobody has got them to move at all.

So there is a slight chance now that after three years and a month,

-this might be coming to a conclusion?

-Yes.

-Really?

Possibly. If they send me a revised bill directly to me from them,

I will consider it, after taking advice.

Well, I'll be very interested in what does happen. I will send the bill on to you.

-Good luck with your battle, or your acceptance, whichever you choose.

-Cheers. Thanks.

-Cheers, Alan.

-OK.

We asked TalkTalk for a statement on Alan's case.

They told us:

Because of the time it has taken to get to this point,

Alan holds a lot of resentment against TalkTalk.

And even though they have now offered a result that I think is acceptable,

Alan wants to see it in black and white to believe it.

Well, since my final meeting with Alan, TalkTalk have put their offer in writing to him.

In the letter, they restate they are dropping all the disputed charges on his bill,

but say:

But Alan, against my advice, has decided not to accept this offer,

and to carry on battling.

I am very impressed that Dom has managed to get anywhere with TalkTalk.

They could have come to this agreement two and a half years ago.

They have done everything to obstruct.

I partly admire Alan, but sometimes you have to ask yourself,

is the stress worth the reward?

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd