PDA

View Full Version : Virgin Media keep cancelling installation due to staggering operational incompetence


tomtheguvnor
27-10-2009, 14:32
Having become completely frustrated with Virgin Media's inability to resolve my problem I'd thought I'd post here to see if anyone had any advice or could offer a little empathy ;).

The first bit of the story can probably best be summarized buy the complaint I sent to Virgin Media a couple of weeks ago:

Having previously experienced poor service, staggering levels of incompetence and, on one occasion, racist language from your company in it's former incarnation (NTL), I was hoping that under the Virgin brand you might have undergone some operational improvements. Alas this is evidently not the case.

This week I moved into a new property. Some weeks ago via your website I attempted to setup a new account with Virgin Media to provide TV, phone and broadband at this new property. I entered all information as requested and chose the date for installation from those available to be the day after I moved in.

I subsequently received an email from your credit department who requested I send through "proof of address" via fax. I attempted to do this but found that the fax number I had been provided with failed to answer.

I attempted to call your credit department who, after keeping me waiting in a queue for 25 minutes, informed me that the fax number I had been given "didn't work" and provided me with another.

I then successfully faxed my proof of address to the new fax number.

I requested confirmation via email that the credit department had received these details and asked for progress on setting up my account. In particular, I requested confirmation installation would occur on my chosen date. I received no response.

I attempted to call your credit department to get confirmation, but was disconnected after 20 minutes on hold. I attempted to call another number I found for Virgin Media and was told by a very rude and abrupt woman that I needed to call the credit department and it "wasn't her problem".

Subsequently, earlier this week I called your sales department to see if they could shed any light on the progress of my order. I was told that it still had not been approved by the credit department! Apparently they still required further proof of my new address and proof of my date of birth (which I have now faxed to yet another fax number).

WHY DID THE CREDIT DEPARTMENT NOT REQUEST THESE DETAILS FROM ME DIRECTLY?
WHY DID THE CREDIT DEPARTMENT NOT RESPOND TO MY REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS?
WHY DOES IT FALL TO ME, AS A CUSTOMER, TO DRIVE YOUR INTERNAL PROVISIONING PROCESS FORWARD BY SPENDING A LARGE AMOUNT OF ON THE PHONE TO YOUR COMPANY IDENTIFYING SOMEONE WHO IS ABLE TO ASSIST?

Consequently I have been advised that once the credit department do approve my application (assuming they are capable of doing something), I will need to wait another 10 days for an installation. This is incredibly inconvenient as my partner is currently unable to get to her office and needs a home internet connection in order to work.

I must tell you that I would have long ago cancelled my Virgin Media application and used a competitor's service had an alternative been available to me (I am prevented from getting Sky due to planning restrictions). So unfortunately I am stuck with your badly run organisation until Ofcom takes on your monopoly of cable TV. This is not the expectation I have of Virgin brand which in other sectors is a byword for excellent quality and service (well... maybe with the exception of the trains...).

Shortly after this I managed to finally get hold of a guy in sales called Nick who seemingly had his head screwed on. He told me that unfortunately my faxed ID could not be read by the credit department (who uses fax these days?). Of course no one in credit had bother to tell me this - I had to find out myself by calling and asking.

I arranged with Nick to email (yes email - that 20th century technology) scanned PDFs of my ID and proof of address and he would take it up with credit on my behalf.

A few days later, Nick advised me my application had been accepted. He said he'd waive the £50 for the V+ box they'd normally charge for my trouble. He gave me an confirmed installation date of Thursday this week. It all seemed to be finally sorted.

However...

This morning I receive a call from Patricia in the complaints department. She had received my complaint (above) and asked if I could be persuaded "not to cancel the service"! Apparently, since I last spoke to Nick, my account and the installation had been cancelled DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE CREDIT DEPARTMENT!! No one had contacted me about it. Apparently I need to fax them proof of date of birth!! Given their lack of success with handling the previous 3 attempts I have made to fax them documents I have refused to do so.

This is utterly outrageous. Why should I as a customer be forced to orchestrate the provision process because of the incompetence of VM staff and their inability to talk to each other or their customers. Patricia even said she couldn't call Nick because he was "in another part of the country"! YOU ARE A TELECOMS COMPANY! EVER THOUGHT OF PICKING UP A PHONE? IF I CAN CONTACT HIM DIRECTLY BY PHONE, WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU? No one takes any responsibility, their staff only seem able to Teflon problems off onto each other.

Virgin Media is clearly in a monopoly position - this is the only way it can get away with delivering such catastrophic service. They should be investigated by Ofcom and broken up. Why are there no other competing cable providers? BT were forced to unbundle their local loop for this very reason - why can't the same happen with Virgin.

Right, I think that's my rant overwith...

XeneX
27-10-2009, 18:23
In balance, I ordered TV/Phone/BB in September and had to re-schedule install at short notice, VM carried out install on new date without problem.
Two weeks ago I noticed SA+ box was a bit noisey, duly advised friendly VM and a Tech was dispatched, I had to wait a week for a Samsung purely due to lack of supply. No compliants here.
Maybe telephone manner counts, or maybe I was lucky.

Tech_Boy
27-10-2009, 18:46
BT were forced to unbundle their local loop for this very reason - why can't the same happen with Virgin.

Because the BT infrastructure was paid for with Public money, the cable network was funded by private investors.

tomtheguvnor
28-10-2009, 08:25
In balance, I ordered TV/Phone/BB in September and had to re-schedule install at short notice, VM carried out install on new date without problem.
Two weeks ago I noticed SA+ box was a bit noisey, duly advised friendly VM and a Tech was dispatched, I had to wait a week for a Samsung purely due to lack of supply. No compliants here.
Maybe telephone manner counts, or maybe I was lucky.

Judging by the words of VM's own employees and subcontractors (http://leakedmemo.com/an-open-letter-to-richardbransonavonline-plc-and-virgin-media/) I'd say you were lucky. Don't get me wrong, I have dealt with some very polite and competent people in my (sadly numerous) dealings with VM. The overwhelming impression I get is that the workers "on the ground" are ill-served by their management. The fact that one department seems incapable of talking to another is a structural problem which the business should be identifying and correcting at the executive level.

Kymmy
28-10-2009, 08:32
Judging by the words of VM's own employees and subcontractors (http://leakedmemo.com/an-open-letter-to-richardbransonavonline-plc-and-virgin-media/) .

Why point to a site nearly two years out of date to support your post?? A lot can change in that length of time..

As too your "who uses fax" well 100% of companies who legally can only accept fax as electronic proof as email isn't yet legal as proof

There's lots of VM staffers about on here who might be able to suggest your next step and if they can't then there are other ways that the forum can help ..

tomtheguvnor
28-10-2009, 08:40
Because the BT infrastructure was paid for with Public money, the cable network was funded by private investors.

True, and a fair point, but the fact remains that VM have a monopoly over a physical network that covers 55% of the country. Is that the case with any other broadcast medium?

To draw a parallel, Microsoft is/was privately funded but that did not stop the US and EU intervening against monopolistic practices.

Stuart
28-10-2009, 10:11
True, and a fair point, but the fact remains that VM have a monopoly over a physical network that covers 55% of the country. Is that the case with any other broadcast medium?

To draw a parallel, Microsoft is/was privately funded but that did not stop the US and EU intervening against monopolistic practices.

The major difference being between MS and VM is that Microsoft is arguably the dominant software manufacturer in the market (Windows probably accounts for over 90% of the Operating Systems installed on PCs). Virgin, can physically only dominate 55% of the market. It's worth noting that Sky probably has a similarly domineering position in the pay TV market, but the Government or EU have yet to take the same level of action that the US and the EU did against Microsoft.

Also, why should Virgin *not* have the right to decide who accesses their network? BT's network was publically funded (while it can be argued that the central infrastructure has changed, I'd lay odds that the bulk of the "Last Mile" was laid with public money as that is not likely to have changed much since BT was privatised). Virgin's network was paid for by the investors who invested in the cable companies that merged to form Virgin.

Virgin is by no means a monopoly. The bulk of the houses which can get cable can get Sky. A lot of them can get Freeview as well. Now, I know that in the Microsoft example, everyone who uses Windows can use another OS (be it Linux, BSD or OSX), but the software they need may not be available for that OS.. In that respect Windows is like Sky's service. A lot of channels are Sky exclusives.

tomtheguvnor
28-10-2009, 13:06
As too your "who uses fax" well 100% of companies who legally can only accept fax as electronic proof as email isn't yet legal as proof

I don't believe that's strictly true. If you read the Civil Evidence Act 1995 you'll see that the use of fax is only mentioned in relation to obtaining a signature to certify something (e.g. if you were to sign a contract). A basic copy of a document in this instance is valid in any format as long as the integrity of that copy can be "authenticated in court". A PDF e-bill produced and digitally signed by a utility company is a damn sight more "authenticable" than a fax which could have been mocked up and modified easily by hand.

With that in mind, I have on a number of occasions provided PDFs of electronic utility bills to numerous service providers as proof of address without issue. Indeed, one of VM's staff eventually admitted this would be fine and provided me with his email address.

So for this purpose there really is no reason to insist on a fax (I accept it would be different if I was being asked to sign a contract). VM need look at their own marketing and move into the 21st century.