Keep an eye on how long you are kept on hold

24-09-2006, 17:32

Icstis claim that they are suspicious of any delay longer than 15 seconds, no service provider is allowed to use unnecessary delays to generate revenues.
For the full story see money mail form today.

Graham M · 24-09-2006, 19:07

What can you do in 15 seconds though...?

Paul K · 24-09-2006, 19:15

Now there is a leading question

Toto · 24-09-2006, 19:25

Icstis are being handed powers by Ofcom however I seem to remember that this will not happen untl 2008, and as the reports seems to claim that ntl are going back to free customer care and support, this will be nothing to worry about.

greencreeper · 24-09-2006, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeph

What can you do in 15 seconds though...?

I'm sure I can think of something.

What do you mean? The time waiting to first speak to an operator, or the time kept waiting whilst the operator does something for you? Where I work, a wait time of upto 5 minutes is acceptable, though I think the average would be about 3 minutes. We try to minimise the time a customer is kept on hold, but if, say, their printer is faulty and I need to double-check that we maintain that printer, I need to speak to another department, which could take one to two minutes (possibly more). I think 15 seconds is way too short.

lostandconfused · 25-09-2006, 00:06

i think 15 seconds is a bit short IMO, if companies are only allowed to have customers holding for 15 seconds it means they would have to have loads more staff which is more expensive especially since they would be doing less work as they would be waiting for calls to come through rather than taking call after call.

another option though would be to limit calls coming through meaning you would have to keep calling back until an agent isnt on a call, incurring a connection fee every time which would be a lot more expensive to the customer

26-09-2006, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by greencreeper

I'm sure I can think of something.

What do you mean? The time waiting to first speak to an operator, or the time kept waiting whilst the operator does something for you? Where I work, a wait time of upto 5 minutes is acceptable, though I think the average would be about 3 minutes. We try to minimise the time a customer is kept on hold, but if, say, their printer is faulty and I need to double-check that we maintain that printer, I need to speak to another department, which could take one to two minutes (possibly more). I think 15 seconds is way too short.

What they are on about is the time you are kept on hold once your call has been answered.
They are saying that they are suspicious if you are kept longer than 15 seconds, the answer to this seems to be more staff to take the calls, there is no doubt in my mind that ntl will employ as few csa's as they can get away with, putting the welfare of the customer on the back burner, ntl are not the only guilty party in that respect.
I would suggest that when people call these numbers, if they are kept on hold longer than 15 seconds they notify ICSTIS and let them deal with it, this will also help highlight the problems of understaffed call centres.

orangebird · 26-09-2006, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Icstis claim that they are suspicious of any delay longer than 15 seconds, no service provider is allowed to use unnecessary delays to generate revenues.
For the full story see money mail form today.

But if ntl are going back to freephone numbers, how is being put on hold generating any rvenue for them?

26-09-2006, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

But if ntl are going back to freephone numbers, how is being put on hold generating any rvenue for them?

Ob Ntl are to go onto freephone numbers, I am not disputing that, what I am thinking is " kneejerk reaction " to future action should they continue to rip off customers with these expensive numbers that they rake a good amount of money from?
It is about time something was done, and I think that 15 seconds is good enough before eyebrows are raised, but will only work if people do as I suggest, keep a log of calls that exceed the 15 second hold and notify ICSTIS, if they are saying that they are suspicious then we should do all we can to weed it out.
If it is down to manpower levels then our unemployment rates will soon come down

orangebird · 26-09-2006, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Ob Ntl are to go onto freephone numbers, I am not disputing that, what I am thinking is " kneejerk reaction " to future action should they continue to rip off customers with these expensive numbers that they rake a good amount of money from?

But if they're going to freephone (or as I believe, have already gone..), this entire thread, as far as ntl is concerned, is a bit pointless, no?

Quote:

It is about time something was done, and I think that 15 seconds is good enough before eyebrows are raised, but will only work if people do as I suggest, keep a log of calls that exceed the 15 second hold and notify ICSTIS, if they are saying that they are suspicious then we should do all we can to weed it out.

And how do you propose that this is policed?

Quote:

If it is down to manpower levels then our unemployment rates will soon come down

Then expect the numbers to become payable again - they're gonna have to pay the wages somehow...

brundles · 26-09-2006, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

another option though would be to limit calls coming through meaning you would have to keep calling back until an agent isnt on a call, incurring a connection fee every time which would be a lot more expensive to the customer

Have to agree with that one - companies are much more likely to use this 'cost efficient' approach rather than the customer friendly approach. At least when you're on hold you know there is a queue rather than just having to hope you get through in a second.

Russ · 26-09-2006, 12:18

I've never understood why ntl can't do what BT have been doing for ages - all through your time waiting to speak to someone, you're given the offer of a callback - and these once actually materialise - within an hour.

lostandconfused · 26-09-2006, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

I've never understood why ntl can't do what BT have been doing for ages - all through your time waiting to speak to someone, you're given the offer of a callback - and these once actually materialise - within an hour.

they do, its called Q buster but its only activated when the abandonment rate goes above a certain percentage as it is expensive to use, i think its 4% and it becomes active

Russ · 26-09-2006, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

they do, its called Q buster but its only activated when the abandonment rate goes above a certain percentage as it is expensive to use, i think its 4% and it becomes active

I never ever had an offer of a callback (other than when someone was trying to fob me off) whereas each time I call BT and I'm in a queue, it gets offered and the call arrives within 10 minutes.

greencreeper · 26-09-2006, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

What they are on about is the time you are kept on hold once your call has been answered

In that case, 15 seconds is unrealistic IMHO.

I hate call backs. Annoy me no end. You can call, wait patiently, and have your problem fixed. Or you can call, and hang up, and leave us to spend days chasing you - "in a meeting... can't find her... no answer... surgery closed...". And the time wasted chasing people could be better spent actually answering the phone and helping those customers who have patience.