Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
I am not trying to excuse anything you have mentioned, but out of the issues you have highlighted I am trying to see an issue that could be directly attributed to the agent you recorded, which would prompt the need to publish the call online
Surely a breakdown of the issues would be enough?
---------- Post added at 03:02 ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 ----------
1) is related to a physical install, so is unlikely to resolved on the phone, and if installed by Telewest would be over 19 months old now. If you are trying to claim back £125 for a BT install fee, Virgin would ask for written proof, so the agent on the phone could not get this authorised
2) Who within VM admitted to oversubscription? How many times did you report a fault? Any credits to be give to you would have to cross-checked with logged faults on the account. If there were full records then you would have been credited for the loss of services only as Virgin do not offer compensation above that.
3) This does happen to protect both Virgin and Customers. Would you prefer no action to be taken after a sudden jump in certain usage?
4) Agreed the call barring should probably have been removed once payment was cleared, if that is what had been agreed. However, it is not VM policy to push through work orders, unless they are past due, so even if the agent had phone the NTC, they would have denied the request. Even from a restricted line 999 calls can always be made.
5) Are you talking about the agent you recorded or in general?
6) I assume you are talking about a Deadlock letter, which can only be sent by Customer Concern. The agent you recorded would not be part of that team, so would not able to action the request
|
In response to the above...
You believe the purpose of recording the call and putting it on the net is about retaliation on the agent?, its not its to give people an insight to the poor service received.
1) I know the agent on the phone cannot get this authorised I never said he could, I said if I wanted to go back to BT I cant do it without a charge because Telewest cut the wire in order for the technician to feed the Telewest phone wire throught the same hole (Cutting corners), resulting in a £125.00 install charge from BT if i want it reinstalled.
Which I dont see why I should be liable for that when it was Telewest engeneers who screwed that up, and VM have accepted they was in the wrong as per conversations, THE BEST CALL i cannot put online as I didnt advise how i intend to use it, however I can pass it to ofcom or legal purposes.
2) TEchnical support and numerous other staff members and notes on my account confirm this. so doesnt need me to prove it their IDs are recorded on the CC screen with their notes
you said...
3) This does happen to protect both Virgin and Customers. Would you prefer no action to be taken after a sudden jump in certain usage?
What part are you replying to?
4) Agreed the call barring should probably have been removed once payment was cleared, if that is what had been agreed. However, it is not VM policy to push through work orders, unless they are past due, so even if the agent had phone the NTC, they would have denied the request. Even from a restricted line 999 calls can always be made.
I take it your a staff member.
Then you should be aware that VM should have removed the call baring after payments made to Credit Services / High Usage notified. You also would appreciate that 7 days after payment and needing to make an emergency call to a FAMILY MEMBER in distress (Not my self) they have the power to contact the NATIONAL TELEPHONY CENTRE to have it pushed throught the switchboard which would have taken 20 mins to 2hrs but insisted on following standard procedures dispite their failure to remove the call baring in the first place, having put on a restriction to all services when capable of restricting the PPV services by change of PIN and BA hit including adding administration call baring whcih would have kept the line active for landline calls, the broadband and the TV. PLEASE NOTE the services were NOT in areas and all customers pay for the services up in advanced therefore there was no excuse for VM to shut off the services, also 7 1/2 yrs of good payment history and having all services means your business is taken more into consideration an extention was also permissable but choose not to, though the extentions changed from 7 days to 4 I only requred 2 days (AKA 48hrs) they required £100.00 they got £250.00 as promised yet failed to remove the call baring 7 days on and only found out when a family member was in distressed and needed to call abroard.
Something btw 999 is not going to solve anything!
and NO the NTC wouldnt have refused because a manager has the power to advise the NTC of the circumstances and considering payments had been made and CLEARED onto the account 7 days previously they was able to remove it but CHOOSE NOT TO
5) Are you talking about the agent you recorded or in general?
Quote the part your reffering to as whilst replying to your post I cannot see the original message i put, this is a 4 month complaint going on with VM so what part of this complaint are you reffering to?
But nothing is aimed at the agent in specific but as the company as a whole
6) I assume you are talking about a Deadlock letter, which can only be sent by Customer Concern. The agent you recorded would not be part of that team, so would not able to action the request
No one is critising the agent, this was a standard letter but it goes to show the inconsideration and cheek VM's decition makers have to think sending a blind fold to customers who want to disconnect is smart or even clever and itsnt going to result in irate customers, maybe more applicable to some one wanting to disconnect because BT offer X Y Z offer etc, but when its CUSTOMER NEGLECT then a blind fold is not applicable, so the team in VM who came up with this idea need to rethink a technique that applied to all customers not just those threatening to go with a competitor over prices