A couple of months ago, while eating a Waitrose fried chicken wrap, I bit down on something hard and white, which felt like stone. 

It broke my dental crown, which has cost £760 to repair and the pain has been horrendous.

Waitrose seemed less than concerned, but asked me to send it the foreign body. 

The subsequent investigation found it was a bone and Waitrose said a warning on the packaging about bones potentially being present meant it was not liable.

I was sent a £4 voucher, which I found insulting. 

I asked Waitrose to return the foreign body so I could get it tested myself, but the supermarket posted back a small piece of meat, not the item I sent. It also refused me a copy of its report. Please help.

Name and address supplied.

Biting back: A reader was left in serious pain and with £760 dental bill after biting down on a hard object that had found its way into a Waitrose chicken wrap

Sally Hamilton replies: You contacted me in April for help and included a photo of the wrap’s remains sitting on your desk, plus the sorry image of your crown broken clean in two.

You also sent a shot of the solid-looking object you said was responsible for the break and a copy of the dentist’s invoice.

A broken crown is not what you’d expect from eating a soft chicken wrap. In my view, such a purchase is eaten as a convenience food on the go rather than at a table with a knife and fork.

You wouldn’t expect to have to inspect the contents closely for risky foreign objects before taking a bite.

You later saw the small print on the packaging that stated something to the effect of ‘as with all meat, may contain bones’. You said you would have required a magnifying glass to read this.

Unfortunately, because you had instigated legal action against Waitrose for reimbursement of your dental bills via the small claims court by the time you came to me, my approach to the supermarket fell on stony ground.

I could not extract more details about what happened to the alleged foreign object while you were awaiting mediation with the retailer. I waited patiently while the process ran its course.

But when it did, in mid-June, all you felt able to tell me was that you had to be careful about what you said. You wouldn’t tell me anything concrete about the outcome of the mediation process.

Maddening as this was for me, I don’t blame you. It is daunting for an individual customer to take on a powerful supermarket with a legal team to match.

I can make assumptions about the result and believe that it may well have gone in your favour, at least to some extent. I cannot know that for sure. But if it hadn’t, I suspect you would have been happy to reveal more.

Let Me Know

After Virgin Media was fined £28 million for preventing customers from cancelling contracts, what’s your experience of trying to leave a phone, TV or broadband deal?

Email: sally@dailymail.co.uk

When I asked Waitrose for its update, suggesting it appeared as if you had been silenced by its lawyers, it told me it was ‘factually inaccurate’ to say you were silenced by them.

It would not comment on the legal action or the result, and all its spokesman would say was: ‘We’re very sorry to hear about our customer’s experience. We have the highest standards of quality and a robust, tried-and-tested approach in the event a product is returned to us

for investigation.’

This didn’t reveal much. I may have been left toothless in fighting your case, but I can perhaps guide others who end up in a similar predicament when a food purchase proves to be unfit for purpose or causes damage to a person.

Customers who wish to complain can potentially cite two important protections: the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which states a manufacturer or seller is strictly liable for personal injuries caused by a defective or unsafe product; and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which says goods must be of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose, otherwise there has been a breach of contract.

The wording on your packaging (and on many others) about bones possibly being present may be used as a defence by a retailer, but this does not necessarily absolve it of responsibility.

It is wise not to accept any fob-offs such as low-value vouchers, as it could be argued these were accepted as a final resolution of a complaint.

If a foreign object caused no harm, but was simply unpleasant to discover in a food, the most a customer is likely to receive is a full refund of the purchase and maybe a voucher.

For a claim involving damage to teeth to have a chance of succeeding, evidence is crucial.

Dig out the original receipt as proof of purchase, all the packaging, the remains of the food item and the foreign object, storing it initially in the fridge to prevent deterioration.

Take photos of everything, including the dental damage, and keep copies of treatment records and bills. With all this, customers will have a chance of presenting a claim with bite.

B\&Q air conditioner never arrived

In July, we ordered a portable air conditioner from B\&Q for £959. 

It arranged for DPD to deliver it but we never received the unit, despite being at home the day it was due to arrive.

The courier claims the device was delivered, but had instead gone to another address. 

As this happened during a heatwave, it was vital to have quick delivery, as my husband is in his 90s and asthmatic. 

I have been on the phone to both B\&Q and DPD to no avail. Can you help?

A.S., London.

Sally Hamilton replies: The non-delivery of your aircon unit left you hot and bothered.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if an item goes missing, is damaged or delayed, it is the retailer that should sort things out, not the courier.

The buyer’s contract is with the seller and it must ensure the item gets to them in one piece. If it fails to do this, it must either replace the item or refund the customer.

With temperatures soaring, your preference was to have an urgent replacement for the machine so you could get to work on cooling your home.

I asked B\&Q to switch up the dial on its efforts to reunite you with the aircon unit.

Try as it might, neither B\&Q nor Electric Mania – the supplier on behalf of the retailer – could track down your item.

Instead, the firm arranged a full refund of the £959 ‘as a goodwill gesture’. You rightly didn’t think getting your money back for something not received was a matter of goodwill, but you accepted it reluctantly.

Under consumer law, once it is agreed a refund is due, it must be paid within 14 days. That’s a long time to continue to keep your cool. Meanwhile, B\&Q says the search continues for the unit.

Straight to the point

In May, I had an Octopus Energy EV charger fitted by an engineer, although they couldn’t get it to work. 

I’ve had to go to charging stations instead and pay up to five times the amount I would have at home. 

The engineer has said there’s a problem with the wall charger so I’ve had to buy a very slow version for £140.

D.N., Bolton.

Octopus Energy apologises and says it has now fitted a new charger. It has paid you compensation for the delay, the cost of the plug and the charging you had to do on the public network.

***

A few months ago, I noticed that my monthly package with EE was costing more than £70 so I decided to stop the TV element. 

I posted the TV kit back and EE confirmed I had returned it.

But it has since sent me emails saying I haven’t done so. Each time I explain I have returned it, but it still sends more emails.

W.C., Devon.

EE apologises and says it sent the emails in error. As a goodwill gesture, it has refunded your early termination charges for cancelling the TV element before the end of your contract.

***

My father died last year and left behind an Aegon pension of almost £130,000. 

A few months later my family received the money from this pot but Aegon distributed it differently from the way my father wanted. 

We tried to challenge it, but Aegon would not listen. It has now found a letter detailing the correct way it should have been distributed so it has demanded one family member pay back almost £26,000, which has caused them huge stress.

S.S, Northants.

Aegon apologises and says it used an out-of-date nomination-of-beneficiaries form. It has written off the £26,000 overpayment.

• Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@dailymail.co.uk 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.