A 90-year-old man with dementia was threatened with bailiffs after his wife tried to cancel a mobile phone contract that he can no longer use.
Vodafone refused to close Frederick Brown’s* account because he could not remember his security passwords, and the company told his wife it might take enforcement action if she cancelled the direct debit. Brown, who has been a Vodafone customer since 2005, is currently paying £22.75 a month for a phone he has not switched on for two years.
“Customer services told my mother she would have to take my father into a Vodafone store as she didn’t have the passwords, but the store manager said it would have to be done online,” said his daughter Sylvia. “My mother went back to customer services and asked if she could cancel the direct debit. She was informed by several different agents that bailiffs may be sent to the house if payments stopped.”
Brown’s plight reflects the obstacles faced by vulnerable customers locked into unsuitable contracts because they are unable to pass standard security checks. In March, the Guardian reported the case of a 91-year-old widow whose bank refused to remove her deceased husband’s name from their joint account because she could not recall her pin.
The charity Dementia UK told the Observer that its helpline receives many calls from families unable to cancel or amend contracts of a relative with memory loss.
“If companies are able to monitor their customers’ usage, this should allow them to stop excessive and unwarranted bills for vulnerable people,” said director of clinical care Paul Edwards.
According to James Daley, managing director of the campaign group Fairer Finance, companies across all sectors are letting customers down because of poor staff training and inflexible systems.
“Often customers are faced with a ‘computer says no’ scenario because processes are too rigid. There’s an important balance to strike between having adequate security processes and flexibility to provide the right support when people are unable to engage with those systems,” he said.
A guide to the fair treatment of vulnerable customers launched by the telecoms regulator Ofcom in 2020 requires firms to adapt their approach to the needs of individuals, and to use different security checks if a customer is unable to provide passwords.
“We expect providers to act with compassion and empathy when speaking to someone who is representing a vulnerable customer,” said a spokesperson. “We also encourage firms to offer flexible solutions to people who have specific customer service needs.”
Brown’s wife and daughter both hold power of attorney, but according to Sylvia neither was asked to submit their attorney documents by any of the staff they spoke to.
“I eventually contacted Vodafone customer services myself as my mother had become so upset she was unable to sleep,” she said. “There was a farcical situation where I was telling my father what his postcode and date of birth were so he could repeat them to down the phone, but despite getting us through a security check, the agent was still unable to cancel the contract.”
The family was eventually advised to submit an online terminal illness form with supporting medical evidence.
“My mother – who is 82, a full-time carer and not computer literate – is not computer literate and could not have done this herself,” said Sylvia. “It was extremely distressing for her to have to fill out a form that suggested that my father was at the end of life because of his memory loss. We had to send a hospital letter containing extremely personal information just to cancel an agreement my father had signed 18 years ago for a service he can no longer use.”
Vodafone cancelled the contract and apologised to the family after the Observer intervened. It has since refunded Brown’s last 12 months of direct debit payments as a goodwill gesture.
It said the Browns were informed that third parties can only act on an individual’s behalf if they have submitted a power of attorney document or a terminal illness form, but said it is now reviewing the naming and signposting of both forms.
It added that the cancellation of a direct debit is likely to lead to “account recovery action” if an account has not been closed.
“However, we were concerned to read about the language purportedly used when advising the customer [of this],” said a spokesperson. “We will be looking into what further training is needed to ensure customers are appropriately advised of the risks.”
* Name has been changed
