SD : Call centre staff refusing to compensate disabled customer.

[Dash: CF noob]

Richard Branson came round later Tuesday night with a titanium plated tivo

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Dash: CF noob

Richard Branson came round later Tuesday night with a titanium plated tivo

What only ONE, i hope it fitted it for you as well

[Dash: CF noob]

Told him thanks but no thanks I'm off to BT

Anyhoo, back on topic, please.....

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

I'd like to think not all disabled people would do things like this. I know I wouldn't, but those that do out by getting a 'friend' to help don't do the rest any favours.

Get your facts right before posting, he did not 'get' me to help, I offered it.

If capable, I would like to think that most disabled people WOULD excercise their consumer rights, in the same way as anybody else.

Originally Posted by Doug P

I KNOW not all disabled people would do things like this. I believe the vast majority would not.

This post does not make any sort of sense- always read what you have written before hitting the "submit reply" button

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Did he call the BBC or ITV when remotes were not invented?

No, he didn't have to. His legs worked then.

Originally Posted by kop32

Richard,if you would care to read your original post surely you would have to agree that it is cringe worthy at least,and as for playing the disabled card!!,the whole sorry event was quite frankly not worth posting in the first place,lets put it into perspective ,the guy got a new remote FOC,delivered to his door the day after...job done!,oh by the way sorry for the delay in replying but the batteries in my mouse died and then I spent the next hour ringing Ever Ready trying to get some sort of compensation for it......you know how it is

As I said, I was initialy told that he would have to wait for up to five days. Going by what I was told, that meant he would have been unable to avail himself of the use of the TV service that he was paying for, for almost a week in total.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Get your facts right before posting, he did not 'get' me to help, I offered it.

I didn't say HE did - learn to read.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If capable, I would like to think that most disabled people WOULD excercise their consumer rights, in the same way as anybody else.

Where it's appropriate yes. But this person didn't do that at all and neither did you.

edit as you posted

Anyway we shouldn't be talking at all Richy - that was YOUR idea remember.

So to save it all going wrong and derailing the thread perhaps it's best to stick to that policy.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by andrewbrown

But was that the responsibility of VM? And if not, why would you request compensation?

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'.

Originally Posted by Sirius

I deleted it after reporting as i have more important issues in my life. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Going to stay out of this thread now before i burst a blood vessel.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bogof

I think Richard coulter is harmless, look at any forum he goes on you'll see you have to take him with a pinch of salt. From the stories of his many staff he employees an various companies.

I think ( and mean no disrespect) he is a fantasist but won't really harm anyone, at worst he is a harmless fool,

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.

[johnasimmons]

This thread is just going to degenerate into a slanging match again...

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by johnasimmons

This thread is just going to degenerate into a slanging match again...

That IS usually Richy's intention sadly

Still he does grate my carrot so I am just as bad with him at times.

[johnasimmons]

Beers all round to chill with...

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by johnasimmons

Beers all round to chill with...

Actually I'm off out to cream tea with the vicar in ten minutes so I'll be well chilled

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

probably gobsmacked that anyone would have the brass neck to ask for compensation for a broken remote ,which may or may not have been the account holders fault .
Did the account holder ask you to ask for compen or was that something you took upon yourself ,if the latter then even more shame on you

I alone decided to pursue the request for reimbursement for loss of service as I felt that it was in his 'best interests'. As his Power Of Attorney, I have a duty to do this.

Originally Posted by weegiegeek

What gave you that idea?

Would you like to share with the rest of us what, exactly, the point is that you're trying to make. It is not clear by your reproductions of the previous posts that I have made...

Originally Posted by robson689

Welcome to modern Britain... Idiots demanding compensation for a broken bloody remote!!! Your whole complaint is a joke, you were given £10 to shut you up it doesn't mean that the manager agreed with you.

It is you that is the idiot for putting up with poor service standards, but never mind, your (and others) reluctance to pursue recompense keeps prices down for customers and dividends up for shareholders.

I have no interest in the reason/s why I am offered recompense when the quality of goods and/or services falls below my standards. The fact that my requests are met is myonly concern.

As previously mentioned, it was not the line manager of the call handler that I spoke to in any case, but a contact that I have.

Less of the name calling please..In fact unless there is evidence of new information to add to the thread I'm tempted to close it if all it is going to do is generate baiting,trolling and more off topic postings..

[RichardCoulter]

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Snip!

Do you have something new to add or not?