Not doing what you had asked!

I thought I had cancelled my Debenhams account. At least that is what I had asked their customer support advisor to do.

This morning I received a statement from Debenhams, with the additional late charges reimbursed, but account still showing active. Despite my specific request that I wanted the account closed, it remains active. It's as if nothing happened; that I hadn't brought to their attention the unfair billing and additional unreasonable costs.

Doesn't anyone listen anymore? I said I wanted it closed, and they had agreed to close the account when I phoned up last month. So now, yet another phone call to make, another explanation to give, and more of my time wasted on the phone.

Rule 4: Adopt a proportional response

Had a frustrating morning, started by opening Debenhams store account statement. I had a total balance of £27 owing for something I bought 4 weeks ago. First time for many years I had missed the payment deadline by ---------- 1 day! 

Debenhams had added another £12 late charge payment. Total now £39 .... so I phoned them up this morning.

I said it was totally amoral of them to charge £12 on a balance of £27, especially when for the past 6 years they could see I had always paid off the full amount each month whenever I used the facility, and had spent thousands of pounds with them. Nonetheless irritated, I said politely that I wanted to close the account. They immediately took the £12 off, but not willing to offer apology nor wanting to accept they had acted hastily in my particular case. I suggested in promoting customer relations and reminding me of incurring a late payment charge they could have sent a txt message/made a phone call/sent an email which often they do 4 or 5 times a month enticing me to spend more on my card account, and advertising special purchases in-store/online for cardholders. If there was a late charge imposed then - as the Courts have recently found for normal high-street bank customers - charges should be proportionate to the amount owing.

As a matter of principal, in choosing to close the account for the above reasons, it might hopefully register with their retail company and show a token of disapproval. The retail experience would leave me telling my friends and family how awful Debenhams were, (apart from reimbursing the £12), and perhaps put them off from opening one of their retail card accounts.  

Therefore, RULE 4: Adopt a fair and proportional response.

RULE 3: Be reasonable to the point of being unreasonable

We all like to be considered as acting or behaving in a reasonable manner. However, sometimes just trying to be reasonable, or remaining as such is the hardest thing anyone can do. Indeed, there must come a moment in everyone's life that just being reasonable doesn't achieve results nor pay in any short or long term.

I've spent the past 4 years being reasonable and it's got me to nowhere. Each morning I get out of bed, shower, brush my teeth etc, and then finally put on my reasonable hat before leaving the house so I'm able to face life's little challenges in a reasonable way.

Where has this got me and to what real effect? In short, to the point of diddly squat squared.

Therefore, RULE 3: Be reasonable to the point of being unreasonable.

RULE 2: Do it to them before they do it to you

How many times have you had something done to you and wished you had done it first? Been there, seen it, got the T-shirt? Oh, to have a mark-one, early-warning crystal ball. If it's out there, please let me know.

So RULE 2: Do it to them before they do it to you

Personal Injury Claim

DAVID BARRINGTON - v - WORCESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY NHS TRUST
PERSONAL INJURY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

On 5 September 1997 I was admitted to the Worcester Royal Infirmary (WRI) NHS Trust Hospital having been diagnosed with urethra colic by my GP. There followed a series of events that culminated on 9 September 1997 with a Consultant Urologist performing right ureteroscopy, (the insertion of a long, flexible scope up through the urethra, bladder and ureter to just below the right kidney). This routine procedure saw the avulsion (tearing in two) of the ureter at the top where it joins the kidney and a further avulsion at the bottom where it connects to the bladder; in other words, its subsequent entire loss. The resulting injury was accepted by the Chief Executive WRI NHS Trusts hospital as negligent.

From all available evidence the procedure to remove my kidney stone was performed in far from ideal circumstances: I was late for my operation, it was the last operation of the day and I had not had any x-rays taken 24 hrs prior to being pushed into theatre. I had witnessed a temper outburst by the surgeon as I was being transferred to the operating table. In fact, I had wanted to stop the operation because I was unhappy with the conduct of the surgeon. But I couldn't.

Prior to ureteroscopy I had agreed to this surgery being conducted under anaesthetic. Unfortunately, I had had my pre-medication and the anaesthesia had started to take affect and so I was now no longer in a position to speak or wave my hands. I wanted to tell theatre staff that I was unhappy with the consultant's temper outburst and I did not want the operation to proceed. But the operation did go ahead and for the first few minutes I was well aware of what was being said and the abusive language around me. It is now recognised that I had had only a partial anaesthetic for the first part of the procedure. It came as no surprise for me to finally awake in Intensive Care Unit (ITU) and be told that much of my urinary system had been removed (or torn out!). I was devastated; I felt totally numb for what seemed hours. The hours turned into days, then weeks and then years. Looking back, I feel that I had been butchered. I am still suffering from post traumatic shock.

Emergency surgery followed the avulsion, (whereby a nephrostomy tube was inserted into my kidney and a bag attached externally to collect the flow of urine). This has left me with a wound 20 inches or more in length. Since then I have undergone further extensive ileum-interposition reconstructive surgery, (the insertion of an ileal segment of bowel between the kidney and bladder), in an attempt to preserve some urinary function. This was conducted by a South African urologist at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Birmingham where my care has been transferred.

Following the injury I now suffer considerable pain; this will be permanent. I have to empty my bladder by self-catheterisation five or six times a day; this will need to be done for the rest of my life. I am required to take antibiotics to treat the urine tract infections that occur about every 4 to 6 weeks; these infections happen with regularity and have required periods of hospitalisation. In the future I face the prospect of undergoing the further surgical procedure of right nephrectomy and the removal of some ileum which I am told will involve complex and challenging surgery.

My employment prospects have been severely affected. I am unable to work full time and as a result have suffered both a loss of earnings and a handicap and/or disadvantage in the labour market. I am assessed as 80% disabled. I suffer from post traumatic stress and am continuing to receive ongoing treatment. I also depend upon treatment provided by Pain Management Clinics in Birmingham and Selly Oak. This has made working very difficult.

My last employment was an officer in the Royal Air Force where I held the rank of Flight Lieutenant. I did try and work part-time for the West Mercia Constabulary at their Headquarters in Worcester for three and a half years. This was sometimes difficult due to my injuries, the drugs, problems with cathertering and I found traveling between Birmingham and Worcester just too difficult. I've had to stop driving.

In February 1998 I instructed a personal injury solicitor (Irwin Mitchell Solicitors) and issued a High Court action for compensation and damages. The litigation successfully ended on 3 May 2002 with Judgement being handed down in the Birmingham High Court. I was awarded substaintial damages.

After the court proceding I wrote to the Chief Executive of the WRI NHS Trust, Mrs Ruth Harrison. In her response, she was unable to satisfactorily explain some of the questions I put to her surrounding my injury and the conduct of the operation. I had asked for an explanation of what had taken place particularly the temper outburst of the consultant urologist in Worcester. She replied that as all the staff present during the operation had either left the hospital or retired from service she was unable to help me. She did express her sincere apologies for the difficulties I have experienced ever since.

And so what are the good things that have happened to me?

Meeting new friends who have been extremely supportive and understanding during my many moments of crisis. I have learnt what true friendship is and made new friends, all of whom continue to enrich my life.

It goes without saying I'm really appreciative of the professional care workers, my GPs, the surgeons and nurses in Birmingham, the Shaw Trust (the charity who got me back to work), my physiotherapist in Worcester and my colleagues at West Mercia Constabulary Headquarters; all of whom have helped me adjust my life and get me out of bed each morning.

Road Map of my Inside

In November 1997 I underwent an operation at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital under urologist Mr Arnold and visiting surgeon from South Africa, Mr Manning. The operation restored my unrinary system by inserting a segment of ileum between my right kidney and bladder.

I am required to void my bladder using intermittent cathetering. My urinary roadmap looks something like this.