In early September last year, a van crashed into our field and overturned. There was extensive damage to our fence.

We contacted the driver's insurer Admiral with all the required information and obtained two quotes for repairs, the cheapest being £5,314.

But we were astonished when the loss adjuster only offered us £2,350, saying we would have to claim against the vehicle breakdown firm that collected the car for the rest, as they would have caused some of the damage to the fence in the recovery process.

We reluctantly accepted this offer, as we wanted to get on and fix the fence so our dogs wouldn't escape on to the busy road. 

We paid the contractors the full sum and have been unable to obtain any payment or response from Admiral ever since. Please help.

A.S., Aberdeen.

Sally Hamilton replies: What a shock to have a vehicle land upside down on your property. Thankfully, the driver and passenger emerged unscathed and knocked on your door to report the incident.

I was as astounded as you to learn that Admiral refused to cover the full cost of the repairs because of the recovery vehicle's involvement. This accident was not your fault, so why should you have the hassle of claiming from two sources?

Beyond skimping on the payout, I felt Admiral hadn't covered itself in glory, first by failing to pay even this reduced sum in a timely manner (you contacted me in early January, four months after the event), but then by stonewalling you when you tried to chase the company with questions.

On my intervention, Admiral quickly made an about-turn on its earlier decision. The insurer apologised and agreed to pay you £4,700, plus interest and an extra £400 in compensation for the inconvenience. That's what I call mending fences.

A spokesman says: 'We'd like to apologise to Mr and Mrs S for the delay in reimbursing them for the damage to their fence and for the lack of response to their emails.

'We accept that the service we provided fell short of the standards we aim to deliver. The payment for the repairs to the fence should have been processed much sooner and we should have responded to Mr S's emails more quickly.'

While Admiral confirmed it was the impartial loss adjuster's

decision that Admiral was only responsible for half the repair costs, on reviewing the circumstances, it agreed that it was 'unreasonable' to expect you to provide evidence of which damage was caused by its customer or by the recovery operator.

I asked industry group the British Insurance Brokers' Association what typically happens in cases where a third party such as a recovery firm adds to any damage forming part of a claim.

It told me that in a case where the insurer has arranged the recovery, then it believes it would be fair to expect the insurer to handle the claim in full.

But it warned that as all claims have their own unique circumstances, this may not always be the case.

I am 81 and have heart and other health issues, and my wife suffers from multiple sclerosis and has poor mobility. We also both rely on hearing aids.

Curry's won't hear us out over TV return 

Our TV is our main form of entertainment. Recently, our 12-year-old device packed up so we ordered a new one from Currys, paying an extra £45 to have it set up for us. 

But our hearing aids weren't compatible with the new set. When we tried to return it, Currys said it was non-returnable, as it had been used. Please help.

D.W., Calne, Wilts.

Sally Hamilton replies: Your 12-year-old Sony television connected to your hearing aids via Bluetooth transmitters and an optical splitter plugged into a port on the back of the set. 

This is a device that allows sound from a TV to go directly to certain hearing aids and the volume adjusted by the wearer.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't work with the new Samsung TV, for which you paid £724, including delivery and set up, as it didn't have the correct port connection.

You thought you could solve the problem with a special connection box, which you purchased. But this also required a special port which your set didn't offer.

The TV just wasn't right. You said the picture was great, but that you couldn't hear anything.

You were offered an exchange or a refund by Currys. You opted for an exchange but were told this was only possible if the new item was less expensive than the returned Samsung set. 

The only TV with the port you needed cost about £200 more, so you had to pay £939 up front, including delivery and set up, and then wait for the Samsung to be collected and your initial £724 refunded.

The men delivering the new Sony TV reused the replacement set's packaging to wrap up the Samsung and left it ready for collection. So far, so good.

But no collection took place. You chased Currys several times until finally the retailer said it would not be refunding you, as it considered the Samsung 'used'. You were dumbfounded and furious you were left with a useless TV that had cost you £724.

You were confused by the reference to the set being 'used', simply because it had been unpacked and set up. And if this was the case, why had you clearly been told you could exchange or return it for a refund?

I asked Currys to explain itself. It confirmed a customer purchasing an item online is allowed to open, inspect and return it within 30 days, providing the item is not used. 

If it has been installed, this implies a customer has accepted the goods, and the same return arrangements do not apply. If the item was faulty, however, you would have been eligible for a refund or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I thought your situation a grey area. You had paid £45 to have it installed but did not know the TV wasn't suitable for you until this had been completed. And you tried to make it work for you, too.

But I am pleased to report that within a couple of days of my intervention, a senior executive phoned you to apologise, arrange the collection of the Samsung set and refund your £724. It says it reimbursed you to honour the advice you had received from customer service when you reported your issue with the Samsung TV.

You were delighted and told me that the newly installed Sony set is working perfectly. You said: 'My wife and I can now enjoy our television and receive the sound through our hearing aids, and we are no longer out of pocket.'

• Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email [email protected] — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.