Why don't more companies love their customers?

Last week I was emailed by a SavvyWoman user, Lucy, about a problem she and her husband were having with their local branch of a well known retailer. Shortly after Christmas, Lucy's husband bought a Wii console and accessories set; at least he thought he had. The problem was that when they opened the box, the accessories weren't there.

Needless to say they headed straight back to the shop, only to be told by the retailer's head of security that it was impossible for the Wii to have been sold without the accessories. According to him, the boxed set must have contained everything it was supposed to. He was so sure that he implied Lucy's husband was lying if he said anything else.

Hmm.. accusing your customers of lying as an opening gambit. What would Mary Portas have to say? Lucy and her husband decided to get in touch with their local Trading Standards who told them they were in the right and the onus was on the shop to prove the boxed set had all the items in it, not for Lucy and her husband to prove they didn't.

Funnily enough this didn't appear to cut much ice with the retailer. It was only after I got in touch that the retailer contacted the couple and offered to replace the missing items. It's not that much of a surprise, but it is a bit of a disappointment (to say the least) that only the prospect of media exposure seems able to bring about such a speedy change of heart.

Sure, sometimes there are complicated cases where the judgement may be fine as to who's in the right and who's not and I'm equally sure there are customers who are never happy, no matter what the shop does. But in this case - and many others like it - it must have been obvious from the outset that it was at least possible that all was not as it should be.

What's more, the law was clearly on the couples' side. And even if you did think it was unlikely that the Wii set had been sold without the accessories, isn't that something you should keep to yourself until you were absolutely sure?

Even before the advent of social media, a disgruntled customer could spread the word - good or bad - to dozens of prospective customers. Now they can do so to hundreds, thousands or even millions of others. Maybe this particular retailer doesn't value repeat business. It does make you wonder.

Savings compensation limit goes up.

With interest rates so low it's not very often that savers get good news but the increase in the savings compensation scheme limits from £50,000 to £85,000 from December 31st is to be welcomed.

This means that if a bank or building society goes bust in most cases savers will be eligible for up to £85,000 in compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (and up to £170,000 is protected if it's held in a joint account). I say 'in most cases' because there are some non UK banks that are members of their own country's compensation scheme which may pay slightly different amounts.

Not only is the compensation limit rising but there are other improvements as well. Payouts will be faster with many receiving compensation within seven working days. Those who can't be compensated within seven days will get their money within 20 days.

And if you have both a mortgage (or other debt) and savings with the same bank or building society and it fails, you'll now recieve your savings compensation in full. Previously the amount you owed would have been deducted from your savings first. It wasn't exactly fair - it's not likely you'd have been planning to pay off your mortgage in one fell swoop - and it would have undoubtedly been a bit of a shock for those savers who were also borrowers.

So, with all that good news there has to be some bad news, right? There is. What hasn't been changed by the Financial Services Authority is the basis on which the compensation limits apply. So these new, higher limits don't necessarily mean you can have £85,000 in a bank or building society and be protected by the compensation scheme, they only mean that you can have up to £85,000 in a bank or group of banks depending on how they're authorised by the FSA.

So, to take an example, NatWest, which merged with RBS some time ago has its own banking licence, as does RBS. This means if you have savings with NatWest and RBS you're protected for up to £85,000 in each bank. However, Halifax, which merged with Bank of Scotland around a decade ago, share a banking licence. That means the £85,000 limit applies to savings in both the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland.

In fact, Bank of Scotland's authorisation also covers Birmingham Midshires, Saga, the AA and Intelligent Finance so your £85,000 limit would be split between accounts you had with any or all of these organisations.

And in another change, whereas savers with building societies that had merged in the last couple of years had dual protection (they could claim up to £50,000 from each building society), that has now been reduced. The new limit - post December 31st - is £85,000 spread between the building societies that have merged. Confused? You're not the only one.

The changes to the compensation scheme do mean that banks and building societies now have to tell customers how they are authorised and whether they are part of a larger group (worryingly until the start of this year it was information that could be pretty hard to come by) but I don't think that's good enough.

For savers to have confidence in the compensation scheme it needs to be easy to understand and easy to explain. At the moment - despite the recent improvements - our own savings compensation scheme is neither.