Britannia repays reader £325 after Telegraph involvement It then turned out that your money had been locked into a separate GCIB where returns were capped at 12pc. The fact that, for a short time, both these products had been available together shows just how alert investors need to be. Before I became involved, the bank accepted there had been a mistake and agreed to make up the interest shortfall and in addition pay £75 for the inconvenience. But this was not forthcoming. After failing on several occasions to rectify the problem, the Co-operative Bank - after being nudged by me - eventually paid what it said it would, with a further £50 payment. You have given the latter to Assisting Berkshire Children to Read, a small charity which does what it says on the tin. You understandably feel there may well be others who don't know they have been shortchanged in this way. You hope anyone this might apply to will check their return from such bonds. I lost money at an alarming rate thanks to the Post Office I read in the travel press about the Post Office Travel Money Card Plus as a safe and convenient way to carry money when overseas. In particular, I noticed the statement in the Post Office's information that the exchange rate would be locked in when loading the card. I was advised to load the card in dollars rather than sterling to avoid fluctuations in the exchange rate. This card seemed ideal for my fly/drive trip to the US last year so I bought one, preloading it with the equivalent of £750 worth of US dollars at the exchange rate of $1.538 to £1. This rate seemed on the mean side against the market rate at the time, but I was reassured that I would be able to change back any unused balance on the card at the same rate. This meant, I thought, that I would recover about £650 after leaving $38 on the card to avoid having to reapply for another card for any future travel. BF Dorset The refund was only for £558. You were told, contrary to what you had been led to believe, that the rate fluctuated, which explained the shortfall. The Post Office told me it could not understand why you understood things to be the way you did. The locked-in rate applies to the currency transaction at the time of purchase. I was told this advice is given by Post Office branch teams and could be found in the "Important Information to Know" leaflet given, it asserted, to all Travel Money Card customers. I ferreted around online and in various post offices and couldn't find a trace of it. After that a lot of chivvying led to the admission that the leaflet in question had been superseded some months before the statement had been issued. In its stead these days was one called Travel Money Card Plus. I went to a local post office and was given a version that was the same as the one you had relied on. In this the Post Office undertook to "lock in the exchange rate when you load the cards." This implies to me, exactly as you had said, that the lock-in exchange rate prevails throughout. I pointed this out to the Post Office, which retorted that the leaflet had also been replaced this time by one leaving out the disputed clause. It is disappointing that the leaflet with this ambiguity was still available from post offices when it was three months out of date. Further to my involvement, the Post Office has reimbursed your £92 for, it says, goodwill. The amount being the difference between the purchase and buy-back exchange rates. The Post Office apologises for the inconvenience caused. Not that this sentiment stopped it requiring you to take a letter it sent you to a local post office within three months along with a valid passport or driving licence with your name and address on the documentation to match your details on the top of the letter, rather than simply sending a cheque. Did it think a cheque would get lost in the post, I wonder? Zurich tried to hide the error of its ways I would be grateful for your advice on an anomaly which has occurred in the final valuation of a private pension fund. I commenced a retirement annuity plan with Hambro Life Assurance in August 1976, paying £20.60 per month. The plan was taken over by Allied Dunbar and then by Zurich Assurance. Over the life of the plan, all companies involved have seemed reluctant to provide regular performance updates and details of plan unit make up. The only information in my possession is a letter from Zurich dated September 24 2008. This gave a value of £40,335 but no breakdown of the units which at that time would have been a mix of managed capital and accumulation units. But the final value of the plan used to buy an open-market annuity was £53,366. Had the plan contained the units I was told it did in 2008, its value would have been £69,078. Zurich apologised for the confusion and sent a cheque for £50, which I have not cashed. In spite of a further letter from myself they refuse to explain the discrepancy between these figures. LB Surrey You had two other plans with Zurich which you were happy with. However, the one which you had started in 1976 was understandably baffling, with a plan value twice quoted as very different to what you had been told at other times. The main muddle came about because of a mistake made when, on your 65th birthday, capital units were being switched to accumulation units. The process was done manually and a mistake was made, which gave you more accumulation units than you were entitled to. This wasn't picked up on and, when, a year later, you decided to move the fund to gilts, the old wrong figures were used for the calculation, perpetuating the mistake. When in 2010 the insurer realised what had happened, it did not tell you. This meant that, from £56,210 quoted as the value in September 2009, over two years later the fund, which you had expected to be growing, was now quoted as being worth £53,284. This was the value being used to buy an open-market annuity. Had the units exchanged been correct - and also allowing for what turned out to be some other inconsistencies in Zurich's figures - you estimate you plan would have been worth £69,078. This year Zurich apologised for the error, sent you a cheque for £50, gave you some more incorrect information, and still failed to clarify what was happening. Further to my involvement, Zurich has now sent a letter that really does seem to explain everything in a comprehensive way. In recognition of the error made in converting the capital to accumulation units, and the subsequent incorrect quotes, Zurich has now offered £500. You say the whole matter has been very difficult to deal with. You have held responsible positions and have a reasonable understanding of how these complex savings plans work. You say you worry how others would cope with such problems. You remain mystified as to why no one double checked the figures as they do check on things in the job you do. You maintain that, had Zurich provided routine statements with a full unit breakdown, this error would probably not have occurred. If it had it would have been detected earlier and saved both Zurich and yourself a lot of trouble. Refreshingly, though, you say that there comes a point where you have to stop. You are therefore accepting the outcome including the £500 plus the other £50.