Only 100 Customers/Day Leaving VM - Page 8

etccarmageddon · 05-03-2007, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Took me 7 minutes on the Monday 26th Feb; V+ box delivered Wednesday 28th Feb.

Phone call took about 10-15 minutes to agree a deal - if that was an average, 4 calls an hour, 28 calls per CSR per day, they must only have 4 staff taking calls.........

you will have been speaking to customer services if you're making a regular call. if you ring to cancel you get put through to retentions which have significantly longer waiting times to answer calls. ie. 30 mins the last 2 or 3 times I rang them (which was before the sky one 'removal')

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

Must be cause it was retentions you were trying to get through to i reckon, prior to Sky One being removed the average pickup time by CS was under 5 minutes wasn't it?

Can people just ask to speak to retentions? Or is there 2 different internal queues? One for CS and one for Retentions?

there a direct number for retentions but often people ring customer services, tell them they wish to cancel then get transferred to retentions and wait 30mins for the call to be answered.

so yes, 2 different call queues.

Downloads · 05-03-2007, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

It does not devalue my opinion at all, he/she obviously does not understand contract law, or the fact that a contract can be contested as unfair. If he/she thinks I am insulting they better pick themselves up, its a tough world. I view VOD as a lame duck, is it ok for me to think that? Some think it the bees knees, that is fine also. End of.

How many times do I have to say that a contract can be contested?

As far as i am aware the person didn't say it couldn't be contested, so why does that need them to get a refund on their education? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side or something?

You said why would someone want to watch a 3 year old show... i gave you a reason. If you didn't want an answer, i wouldn't ask the question?

welwynrose · 05-03-2007, 11:15

I was a on/off Sky One viewer but as I am happy with every other aspect of VM I have not even contemplated going to Sky or ringing customer services for a discount - my in-laws didn't even realise Sky had disappeared from their programme list until they were channel hoping the other night - so again haven't thought of cancelling or ringing for a discount - there most be loads of other people like us so I can see that not as many people are leaving VM as were possibly anticipated

etccarmageddon · 05-03-2007, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

... I'm saying that unless retentions can only handle a very small amount of calls, then thats the only way a constant flow of 100 people a day could be lost consistently....

also retentions handles people cancelling for other reasons - e.g. cancelling their broadband cos they can get talktalk etc - so there are more than just the 100 cancelling TV per day.

and I believe after the merger with telewest they made redundant loads of retentions staff so they are under staffed.

Downloads · 05-03-2007, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

also retentions handles people cancelling for other reasons - e.g. cancelling their broadband cos they can get talktalk etc - so there are more than just the 100 cancelling TV per day.

and I believe after the merger with telewest they made redundant loads of retentions staff so they are under staffed.

That may be the case! Only time will tell i guess.

**Hugh** · 05-03-2007, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

...snip....
Blahdy blahdy blah.....
How many times do I have to say that a contract can be contested?

As many times as you want, mate - it's a (mostly) free country.

btw, "contesting" isn't winning, just challenging - could win, could lose, often based on precedent, but not always.

Remember the law professor's words - it was "his view", not the "the law states".

05-03-2007, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

As far as i am aware the person didn't say it couldn't be contested, so why does that need them to get a refund on their education? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side or something?

You said why would someone want to watch a 3 year old show... i gave you a reason. If you didn't want an answer, i wouldn't ask the question?

I did not say that poster specifically said a contract could not be conteseted, I suggest you read the post again.

" And the truth of the fact is, that the removal of one channel does not constitute a huge change in the services you are recieving. If virgin suddenly decided to drop the tv service say, then this is a change for which you can canel without any penalty payment. Oh and did i forget to mention i covered this in my contract law part of my course which appears to have got me a job as a lawyer

"

The above is what I am on about.
I would beg to differ on his/her opinion, that is my right, and I am sure a court would/could come to a different conclusion than the one they state.
There are some happy with VOD, thats fine, you pay your money.....
but it is certainly not something I would spend my money on given the idea behind it and the amount of problems associated with it.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

As many times as you want, mate - it's a (mostly) free country.

btw, "contesting" isn't winning, just challenging - could win, could lose, often based on precedent, but not always.

Precisely, but the " fact " is it can be " contested ".

People should not swallow the cable boy pill that the contract is watertight, thats all.

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Precisely, but the " fact " is it can be " contested ".

People should not swallow the cable boy pill that the contract is watertight, thats all.

Or that Sky is perfect....

**Hugh** · 05-03-2007, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

...snip...Precisely, but the " fact " is it can be " contested ".

People should not swallow the cable boy pill that the contract is watertight, thats all.

I am, in fact, stating that it can be contested/interpreted - you seem to be (mostly) stating that it is invalid - none of us will know until/unless it goes to a court (small claims or otherwise), so just repeating it ad infinitum does not make it true. You appear to be stating as fact an opinion given by a TV pundit professor of law, when all it is, after all, is an opinion, not a fact.

Nemesis · 05-03-2007, 11:44

Can we calm down a little please ......

05-03-2007, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I am, in fact, stating that it can be contested/interpreted - you seem to be (mostly) stating that it is invalid - none of us will know until/unless it goes to a court (small claims or otherwise), so just repeating it ad infinitum does not make it true. You appear to be stating as fact an opinion given by a TV pundit professor of law, when all it is, after all, is an opinion, not a fact.

The end of the day the contract is a piece of paper, not the bible as some on here would have believed.
People who want to leave any company should know that a contract can be contested.
You cannot be held to a contract if you think that contract is unfair.
In my opinion VM did make significant changes to their package, therefore if they do not let people out of the contract, which in fairness they are doing, then they can be rightly taken to task, as can any company.

AndyCambs · 05-03-2007, 12:13

Sky One/Sky News loss isn't really significant changes

05-03-2007, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Or that Sky is perfect....

I would imo say that sky is a lot more perfect than VM.
At the end of the day the people who were working at NTL are still there in all probability, it is just a name change, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Their customer service is imo pathetic.
Other companies have issues I know, but I have never come across a company so bad.

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Sky One/Sky News loss isn't really significant changes

And wtf information do you have to substantiate that?
Tell the people who were ripped off that.

Nemesis · 05-03-2007, 12:27

ok .... Second time of asking .... Please calm down.

Please do not belittle others thoughts or feelings, there is no need.

I will not ask again.

GuestUK · 05-03-2007, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Sky One/Sky News loss isn't really significant changes

The difficulty here is whether something is significant is subjective rather than objective. A person who never watches Sky One or Sky News would consider their loss insignificant, whereas a person who watches nothing but would consider it very significant. It's something which has to be considered on a personal basis, rather than something you can summarise as not being 'significant changes' for anyone.

It also depends on the service and package people have - the more channels they have, the less significant a reduction it perhaps is. For those with very few channels of which Sky One and Sky News were part of, it is more significant. For example, on analogue for me, losing Sky One and Sky News has been quite significant because there are now only a couple of channels remaining (I know, my fault for not being digital, but in my case I would argue it was a significant loss - especially considering the channel number of Sky One was 7, after bbc, itv, channel four, five and itv2)