Driving home from the daily toil at Accountancy magazine and stuck - as usual - in the continuous traffic jam between Kingston and Croydon, I caught an interview on Radio 5 Live. Jane Garvey, one of the two main presenters of the Drive programme, spoke to a Scottish doctor who had encountered problems with Orange, the mobile telephone company.
The doctor had discovered that he had been paying Orange for five years for a non-functioning mobile phone. The charges had been incurred - over such an extended period - because the relevant direct debit had been attached to his business account. This was managed by his accountant.
There had been no discussion between client and accountant on this issue so the direct debit had remained in place. It was, I believe, only the accountant conducting a review of standard arrangements which brought the issue to light.
The doctor contacted Orange whose reaction was brutal. Even though the company acknowledged that there had been no use on the line - no calls had been made - for several years, Orange said that no money would be refunded. Furthermore, it wanted more money from the doctor for terminating the account. If payment was not made immediately then debt collectors would be engaged.
He had not anticipated such a hostile reaction and pointed out that he had notified Orange of his intention to terminate the arrangement. Orange - remarkably enough - was unable to find any reference to the instruction.
At a loss as to what to do, the doctor contacted Radio 5 Live which provoked Orange - in a notable expression of generosity of spirit - to call off the bailiffs and even refund the doctor five years' worth of direct debit payments. The involvement of a national media outlet proved to be the turning point.
Wholesale problems
Many colleagues, acquaintances in the business world and friends have experienced wholesale problems with phone companies.
I recall one friend - a freelance sales executive - who lived alone and spent most of his day and much of the evening with clients. He rarely used the home telephone and was mystified when BT presented him with a quarterly bill of 250.00. His business calls were made from an office and he used his mobile phone - with a different provider - to administer his diary.
BT's finance team was hostile in the extreme. He disputed the amount but was told 'there is no way the bill can be wrong'. The implication was that he must be lying if he challenged the account.
The next quarter another bill for precisely the same sum came in. The first quarter was exactly 250.00 and the second quarter was also exactly 250.00. He rang BT's finance department again who told him that his use was excessive. When the third quarter's bill came in at 270.00, he was beyond despair.
A multiplicity of schemes
The exponential growth in telecoms companies with ICT systems, mobile, internet and broadband offering a multiplicity of schemes, tariffs and packages can be bewildering for individuals and businesses. Few would deny the legitimate company the right to generate sales fairly and to be paid for them.
A young businesswoman, who operates in the internet sales area, had landline telephones in her office supplied by cable company NTL but she also used the One-Tel service to manage costs. Her company mobile telephones were with a plan organised by Sainsbury's - the supermarket retailer - which sold on its franchise in this area to Carphone Warehouse.
All four companies had overcharged her by considerable sums and she spent two days on the telephone attempting to rectify matters. Eventually she achieved better arrangements going forward.
But attempting to achieve refunds was another matter. The flawed arrangement with NTL had persisted for several years - which the company acknowledged - but it was prepared only to refund from January 2003. As a result several hundred pounds had gone down the drain. She can fight it legally but without the help of Radio 5 Live or a national newspaper, are all customers who find fault with their telephone bills left hanging on the line?