Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581445)

You said that you were withdrawing from this thread? :confused:

I knew you'd be back to make unfounded comments to try and stir things up.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35581451)

and exactly how did £10 enable your friend to watch the tv ?? If your friends welfare and viewing pleasure was that important to you ,you would have been better employed buying an all in one remote from curries for a tenna so he could watch it straight away but you are so up yourself you saw an opportunity to be the customer from hell instead of helping a friend .You really are a piece of work .

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581363)

I believe that it was the responsibility of VM, both morally and legally under their legal requirement to make 'reasonable adjustments in the provision of goods and services to disabled people'.





So you say that I sent you an abusive PM, but you then conveniently delete it :rolleyes:

I'll leave it for others to draw their own conclsions. I'll take what you say about staying out of this thread at face value, but going on your past statements of intent, you'll be reading this.



As previously stated, I don't employ any staff (apart from a couple in my own home).

From the nonsene you come out with, it is youthat is a fool.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35526367)

snipprty snip snip.....

That said, whatever the job market, I have always required my employees to speak to their customers, employers, colleagues, suppliers etc with courtesy and respect.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35526499)

Most people, on the face of it, would say that verbal abuse to staff is unacceptable- end of.

But, it depends very much on the situation and context.

- Many of my staff work in adult environments, often with people under the influence of alcohol. There's an old Yorkshire saying "when drinks in, wits out".

Many won't mean or remember what they are saying afterwards. Those who are going to get offended by adult conversation late at night are unlikely to pass their work trial period.

...snippety snip snip.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35459819)

You are quite correct, I personally don't have any staff (apart from my domestic cleaner etc), it is my limited company that employs them ;)

Snippety snip snip....

;)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581445)

I believed that this was totally unacceptable and make no secret of the fact that I used a contact to correct matters. Whilst I acknowledge that this is unfair on those without contacts, it is a fact that this, in many cases, is what makes the world turn in areas of business as well as many others.

Originally Posted by weegiegeek (Post 35581453)

Ah, but he wasn't able to get to his friend's house. Or was he? Even Richard's not sure. I wasn't aware that having no grasp on reality was a disability, but never mind.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35581458)

You see now i doubt the whole story ,it could all be made up with the sole intent of winding up members and trolling ,i actually can't think of another reason to return to the thread after his pal has his £10 and his new remote .

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35581459)

And of course ensuring the staff member was 'reprimanded'.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35581412)

Don't forget we only have your word on what actually happened during the call and due to your abrasive nature when your perceive things to not go your way you'll understand if any of us are sceptical regarding your version of events.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35581425)

Seems reasonable to me. If an agent is going to credit an account, they have to be able to justify that credit, meaning they have to follow full process. So even though they agreed to skip that process initially, once you asked for credit, they then had to comply with it.

Generally the remotes get to customers quicker than the timescale quoted. I would expect that was true in this case.

Yes, you can quite easily from Virgin Media. I believe a V box remote is £12.50

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35581430)

Those are older ones, so will be second hand

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35581432)

I can't believe you resurrected this thread just have a dig at everyone who disagrees with .
I also can't believe that someone like you has power of attorney for someone else

and just so you know VM's " legal and moral duties towards their disabled customers" are no different to the legal and moral duties for anyone else,everyone MUST be treated equally ,any "special treatment"by VM is purely goodwill by them

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581471)

Whilst what you say is true, the same thing could be said of anyone recounting a telephone conversation.

I can confirm that my recollection is correct and accurate.

I believe that the call was recorded, but I would not be able to furnish you with this.



That sounds logical Ben, but these further questions were asked in an inappropriate tone of voice when the agent had already refused a reimbursement of charges.

I never knew that one could legitimately buy spare remotes, I may suggest to my friend that one is purchased with his £10 goodwill credit.



And probably stolen property of VM, so I'll be giving these a miss :D



In the timescales involved, this thread cannot be regarded as having been resurrected.

For the record, however, ill health and recent spells in hospital have impacted on my on line activities.

Legal professionals and members of my friends family have all agreed that I am the best person placed to hold the power of attorney.

It is not clear what you mean by your comment "someone like you". If you are referring to my own disability, I suggest that you enlighten yourself to the modern approach to disability.

Your last paragraph is total nonsense.

VM are bound by the Equalities Act and, therefore, have various obligations towards disabled people.

Briefly, they have to make reasonable adjustments to help the disabled. This is NOT the same as treating disabled people the same as everybody else, indeed it could be viewed as discriminatory to do so.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581471)

I can confirm that my recollection is correct and accurate.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581471)

I believe that the call was recorded, but I would not be able to furnish you with this.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35581451)

and exactly how did £10 enable your friend to watch the tv ?? If your friends welfare and viewing pleasure was that important to you ,you would have been better employed buying an all in one remote from curries for a tenna so he could watch it straight away but you are so up yourself you saw an opportunity to be the customer from hell instead of helping a friend .You really are a piece of work .

Originally Posted by weegiegeek (Post 35581453)

Ah, but he wasn't able to get to his friend's house. Or was he? Even Richard's not sure. I wasn't aware that having no grasp on reality was a disability, but never mind.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35581456)

From your posts of 23rd Jan 2013 in the 'employee outsources own job to China' thread.





And from the 4th Aug last year, from the 'can you explain' thread..



Methinks you are employing sophistry, not just employees.....;)

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35581457)

You feel your friend was treated unfairly so you also acted unfairly to 'correct matters'.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that you cannot see your hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35581467)

Originally Posted by weegiegeek (Post 35581448)

My god, is he still banging on about this?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581490)

You under no obligation to participate if the debate is not to your interest.

You should be able to express yourself in a more civil manner than this.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581490)

You under no obligation to participate if the debate is not to your interest.

You should be able to express yourself in a more civil manner than this.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35581459)

And of course ensuring the staff member was 'reprimanded'.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35581478)

I, and i'm sure many other members could spend a small amount of time tearing this post apart and revealing it for the hogwash it is but to be frank i can't be arsed and it will serve no purpose because you will just repeat more nonsense .
Maggies right nothing new added ,the customer got his new remote time to move on .

In the meantime before you start another pointless thread i suggest you re-read what you posted here and in another thread you started from your hospital bed ,then you may realise why people think you make stuff up

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35581480)

I would expect you to say that. However I would not expect you be completely objective and fair in your assessment.



No need, the call WOULD have been recorded as there would need to be a paper trail for the £10. However if you mean whether an audio recording of the call was made, this point is moot as nobody on their forum would have access to it. Or at least would be able to make any comment about what was said on the call.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581484)

You should be able to express yourself without rudeness.

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701 (Post 35581495)

You have not managed to be civil yet, why are you expecting others to do so wehen you don't?

Originally Posted by weegiegeek (Post 35581497)

There is no debate, there's you saying completely contradictory things in different posts and people calling you out on the inconsistencies and your unreasonable behaviour when you cal the call centre.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35581504)

Nonsense, it is you, again, that is entering threads with the sole intention of stirring things up and causing bad feeling.

One example is your repeated childish use of "Richy" to address me. You are being deliberately vexatious as you have previously been categorically told that you should use "Richard" or "Mr Coulter".



Do you have any examples of these alleged contradictions and inconsistencies?