I wish to bring attention to the procedure currently being used by ARMS Ltd when receiving energy benefit vouchers as payment towards utility bills.

It is the policy of ARMS to only accept a total of two vouchers as part payment of a utility bill and the total of the two accepted vouchers must not total more than the actual bill. The outstanding balance must be paid in cash.

Such policy might be considered acceptable in normal circumstances but I am sure most people will agree that there is no normality in the infrequent way ARMS send out the utility bills which sometimes cover a very long period.

This creates a situation where someone who has accumulated more than two energy benefit vouchers while awaiting the utility bill is being denied the right to utilise the full benefit amount to which he or she is entitled as only two such vouchers can be used towards actual pay

ment. The remaining vouchers must then be retained until the next utility bill as issued at the leisure of ARMS is received and if in the meantime such vouchers should expire they have to be returned to Social Security in order to be re-issued.

My wife is fully aware of this seemingly unfair policy by ARMS, having experienced it first hand in the past when paying utility bills on behalf of her sick, elderly mother. She even exchanged correspondence with them about it but they were adamant both verbally and in writing that only two vouchers could be accepted.

Recently, an elderly aunt living on her own contacted my wife in a very distressed state and it was this which prompted me to write this letter. She had been to the post office to pay her utility bill only to be told that only two out of the three valid vouchers she had in hand could actually be used towards her bill and that the balance had to be paid in cash. She was therefore, in my opinion, denied her right by ARMS to utilise a valid payment she had been given by Social Security as help towards her utility bill.

I suspect that there are numerous elderly people being unfairly inconvenienced and distressed by this seemingly unfair procedure when settling their utility bills. Such procedures are actually denying the elderly the right to utilise funds to which they are entitled. I await a public response from ARMS Ltd.