McAfee comes under fire from readers

by Paul Gosling

We recently featured a reader's letter (Save & Spend, 21 January) from MW, who was unable to get a refund from McAfee for virus protection software that she did not want renewed. McAfee had automatically charged her, using credit card information supplied for the initial transaction. We contacted the reader's credit card issuer, which arranged to charge back the amount. Subsequently we have received more letters about McAfee.

n n n I had the same problem with McAfee, which automatically renewed my subscription. It contained an e-mail contact address for cancellation, which I responded to, but I got an automatic response saying the e-mail address was no longer in use. I sent further e-mails, without resolving the problem. Eventually I arranged with my credit card issuer to charge back McAfee. TS, by e-mail

n n n I have also had problems with McAfee. In October I attempted to purchase a virus protection programme online, paying by credit card. Downloading failed, so I immediately e-mailed McAfee to cancel and request a refund. It confirmed this, but only refunded part of the cost. Over the next two months I e-mailed numerous times. Each time I was advised that the address I had contacted could not deal with my query and directed me to another site. Eventually I was told that the outstanding cost was for a backup CD that had been sent to me by post - which I have never received. Finally McAfee accepted I should be refunded the full amount, which I have still not received. PC, London

n n n I too have sent more than 20 messages to McAfee customer care e-mail addresses - without any response. You expect something better from a company claiming to protect people and their PCs from viruses, spam and privacy invasion. JH, by e-mail

n n n We decided to question McAfee about its business practices. The company's UK spokesman, Nick Bowman, says: "This is an issue a few customers have faced on a temporary basis. We had a period a while ago when customers were going into a black hole [on the website] because a link wasn't working. Those links are now fixed."

He said that all McAfee customers who have complained to The Independent have now been contacted and are being full compensated on a "no questions asked" basis.

n n n My partner was driving round a roundabout when a driver pulled out and ran into the side of his car. This driver accepted the accident was her fault, but my partner's car was written off. Her insurer paid for the value of the car, which by then was worth virtually nothing. But my partner is still paying off the purchase of the car. He has had to buy another one, and is left paying off two car loans. This seems entirely unfair. He insists there is nothing he can do. SJ, Oxford

n n n Your partner is correct, although the situation is unfair. Motor insurance covers the market value of the car, not the value to the owner. This is why so-called "gap insurance" - a policy that covers the gap between the price you paid for the car and its declining market value - is proving increasingly popular.

n n n You recently wrote about the effect of the Finance Act 2005 on trusts set up to avoid inheritance tax (Questions of Cash, 7 January 2006). In February 1986 I conveyed by deed an undivided half share in our home to my wife. In the wills of both myself and my wife we have left our half share jointly to our two daughters. Is this affected by the change in 2005? MC, Bristol

n n n Tim Cook, a tax partner at accountants Wilder Coe, says: "The gifting to your wife of an undivided half share in February 1986 is not caught by the new 2005 rules, as these only go back to transactions that took place since 17 March 1986.

"You should be holding the house as tenants in common, not joint tenants, and therefore you are able to control who inherits the respective half shares. The current legal interpretation is that if the survivor lives in the property on their own, there may be a problem. This is because if your daughters allow the survivor to live in the property for the rest of their lives, an 'interest in possession' may well have been created. If the Revenue successfully argues this point, then the full value of the property will fall into the survivor's estate for inheritance tax - this relates to older law.

"Two alternatives have been suggested. One is to use a discretionary trust, but for the survivor to buy the half share of the property left to the trust, leaving the consideration outstanding on an IOU (see Questions of Cash, 7 January 2006). The second relies on a good IHT specialist to advise the family shortly after the death of the first parent.

"I would suggest the two daughters consider settling a reverter to settlor trust with their interest being by way of an interest in possession."

Questions of Cash cannot give individual advice. Please do not send original documents. Write to: Questions of Cash, The Independent, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS; cash@independent.co.uk.