Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
I'm sorry after seeing the thread title and then reading the OP its totally incorrect and misleading.
So a customers remote is faulty through either wear and tear or other reasons and VM offer to send a new one out.
However due to the 'customer' not being able to reach the buttons on the STB its VMs fault and compensation is being sought?
Hahaha, sorry but thats just not ever going to happen no matter what company you called. If only there was a way to remotely change the channnel ;-)
At least the new remote arrived promptly. Would Sky have managed the same?
|
In ordinary circumstances I would agree with you, but as the customer was disabled, VM have a legal (and moral) duty to make adjustments to the norm and be more helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
That would be because that is what VM require the agents to do, so that it can be identified whether the replacement is due to general wear and tear, or whether it's customer damage which would mean it would be a chargeable replacement.
To be fair to Sky, you can get them them through places like Argos and Currys, so maybe a different scenario.
But then that's mainly down to the box ending up as yours, rather than being rented.
|
I fully expected to be taken through the stages of checking the batteries etc at the beginning of the call, but wasn't. The call handler more or less agreed to send out a replacement straight away. It was only when I asked for recompense for his inability to use the service for what was initially going to be nearly a week, that he suddenly started taking an interest in what had happened to the old remote.
It was this, along with his tone of voice, that led me to believe that he was doing this more out of a desire to be vexatious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
So if it happened the way RC is claiming, the agent wasn't being obstructive or anything, merely following VM policy therefore doing his job?
|
See above.