151 has gone

[Derek]

Personally I think it's a bad move.

Unless there is some major reason that they can't have a shortcode for dialling customer care I can't see any reason for them to do this. Especially with little or no warning.

[allieyoung666]

We got a letter along those lines, I cant see what the problem is??? It might be a cost cutting exercise??

[Derek]

No letter here and my most recent bill still has the 151 number on it.

I really can't see the benefits of being one of the few telecoms companies without a shortcode for cust service access. It's not like they have to pay BT interconnect fees for customer dialling 151 from their lines. Plus a few times in the past the 0800 number was unavailable for several hours but 151 kept on going.

The only possible explanation is they are getting ready for putting the Freedom brand under the 'normal' Ntl and want all advertising to carry the 0800 052 2000 number.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

No bills have quoted the old numbers for a long time.

....erm, see attachment below. I couldn't quickly locate last month's bill, but the month before was clearly asking me to call 151.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

But it doesn't work from non-ntl lines. If your phone line breaks down, 151 is a fat lot of good when you try to ring it from a mobile or a phone box.

So what? I can't call 100 from my ntl line to get through to O2's operator. I think most people understand how to use their phone.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Personally I think it's a bad move.

Unless there is some major reason that they can't have a shortcode for dialling customer care I can't see any reason for them to do this. Especially with little or no warning.

I agree. No-one has come up with a good reason why I shouldn't dial 151 as of yet.

[QUOTE=allieyoung666]We got a letter along those lines, I cant see what the problem is??? It might be a cost cutting exercise??[/QUOTE

IF we got a letter (and I can see I am by no means on my own on this issue) then I would think nothing more of it. BUT there was no letter, and more to the point the number has been disconnected BEFORE they stopped advertising!

Lunacy....or in other words negligently incompetant.

[robking]

They could have put a recorded message on the 151 number saying that was now not in use and customers should now call the 0800 number.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by andygrif

So what? I can't call 100 from my ntl line to get through to O2's operator. I think most people understand how to use their phone.

Not the pint. It's still a fat lot of good if your ntl phone breaks down.

The number has been changed, big deal. The company aren't going to spend vast sums of money wroting to every customer about it, money is tight and it's needed for other, more impoertant things. I agree a recorded message would have been a good idea though. Are we sure the number is now out of commission, or has something just gone wrong with it?

I used to find this in credit control when I worked there. Customers seem to think they are 'entitled' to fifteen letters warning them of something before ntl are allowed to do it, and then they threaten OFCOM if they don't get it. Almost every customer we had to disconnect for non payment would rant about the number of warnings they were entitled to by law...which is actually NONE...and a fair number even said we weren't allowed to disconnect them unless we'd warned them BY TELEPHONE.

Some people need to join the real world.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Not the pint. It's still a fat lot of good if your ntl phone breaks down.

It's exactly the pint...and it's the point too!

And becuase they haven't told customers that it's changing it will only add to the confusion when something goes the way of the pear.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

The number has been changed, big deal. The company aren't going to spend vast sums of money wroting to every customer about it, money is tight and it's needed for other, more impoertant things.

Have you any idea...to a customer....how stupid this sounds? Tell you what, we'll get rid of 999 as the emergency number too becuase other people use 112. But we can't afford to tell you. Clever.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

I used to find this in credit control when I worked there. Customers seem to think they are 'entitled' to fifteen letters warning them of something before ntl are allowed to do it, and then they threaten OFCOM if they don't get it.

So you think it's ok to change the main point of contact with a company without telling anyone...that's basically what you're saying right? This has nothing to do with credit control and people not paying their bills.

And can I point out that this bunch of jokers write to me EVERY month. It's called a BILL. Putting the correct information on there would be a start...and who knows maybe even put ONE LINE OF TEXT informing me of the change.

This ain't rocket science...heck, it ain't even customer service, it's just basic manners. Something most people in ntl don't possess.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Some people need to join the real world.

I find that comment quite offensive. If that's ntl's corporate stance then please let me know and I'll forward my cancellation letter immidiately.

[ian@huth]

My latest bill which I got on Saturday shows contact numbers as 150 and 0800 052 2000.

With having several telephone service providers it makes sense to have a single short code for contacting the service provider so that you can pick up any phone and know what to dial. It would be far easier to have common numbers with every provider such as 100 for operator, 150 for customer services, 151 for faults, etc.

Emergency services numbers should have access via all the worldwide numbers such as 999, 112, 911, etc so that anyone finding a phone can guarantee being able to contact the emergency services.

Directory enquiries numbers are problematic nowadays with having to remember six digit numbers.They could have kept 192 which then prompted you to dial a three figure access code for your preferred service or 192 again for the service provided by the telecoms company you are calling from.

They should have just kept 192 for the service provided by the telecoms company you are calling from, with the 118xxx being alternatives if you wanted to use them.

There is no reason I can see to remove 150 or 151 just because the 0800 number exists as well. It's basically a one line entry in the phone system to set up a number translation if you dial it
__________________

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Some people need to join the real world.

Yes they do, and TBH you are one of them if this is your attitude to 'customer service'. Despite what you say, ntl are clearly still advertising the number, and if they decide to remove it then they need to COMMUNICATE the change.

[robking]

Directory enquiries is a joke now, and is such a pain in the neck, I agree with the last post that 118 should have been used as an alternative. As with the 151, I cant see it costing anything more having it there, except having less customers call. I like BT's idea 150 and 0800 800 150.

[scrotnig]

A couple of points:

First off, I don't speak for ntl. Anyone who comes here should be aware of that, if they aren't, then they need to become aware of it pronto. It's an old trick to tell someone posting in their own time that they must be speaking for whatever company they are talking about.

Now, my point is that actually changing the number is not an issue. Having one single number for the whole country makes perfect sense. My ntl bill has only quoted that number for a long time, however, it would appear that bills in other regions haven't been altered and that, I agree, is very poor. Which is what led me to make my earlier remark; is there a possibility that the number has not been withdrawn, but is actually faulty in some way?

I wouldn't have thought the company would be stupid enough to cancel the number before altering the bills. I could be wrong. But it is THAT that leads me to wonder if the number might be broken. Being Easter there may not be people about to fix it.

My 'real world' comment was related more to the paragraph about credit control.

What I say in here has no bearing on my attitude to customer service or anything else. When I'm in work I am paid to do a job. When I am out of work, I am entitled to my own opinions like anyone else.

The problem with keeping short dial numbers is that, due to the numerous different types of telephone systems ntl use to supply the service in the different regions, it has to be a different number depending on where in the country you are. Mine has always been 1503, for example. This is quite pathetic and so some sort of change is inevitable. It does need to be communicated though.

[andygrif]

I can't really see whether you're agreeing with me or having another go in this post. Or both.

What I will say is that you cannot have it both ways. You want to cite examples to support your argument by stating you work for ntl then in the next breath say you express your own views and it's nothing to do with ntl.

But this is all besides the point so I'll say more about it. You think it's ok for ntl to change stuff without telling people, I don't.

As you do work for ntl perhaps you can find out what they're playing at instead of making guesses, that would be helpful. Thanks.

[carlingman]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Not the pint. It's still a fat lot of good if your ntl phone breaks down.

The number has been changed, big deal. The company aren't going to spend vast sums of money writing to every customer about it, money is tight and it's needed for other, more important things. I agree a recorded message would have been a good idea though. Are we sure the number is now out of commission, or has something just gone wrong with it?

I used to find this in credit control when I worked there. Customers seem to think they are 'entitled' to fifteen letters warning them of something before ntl are allowed to do it, and then they threaten OFCOM if they don't get it. Almost every customer we had to disconnect for non payment would rant about the number of warnings they were entitled to by law...which is actually NONE...and a fair number even said we weren't allowed to disconnect them unless we'd warned them BY TELEPHONE.

Some people need to join the real world.

You have to remember though not all people use this shortcut when their phone breaks down as if their phone is broke surely they use their mobile and the 0800 number.

The number 151 is a big deal to some, and as for the vast amount of money spent to advertise this ffs surely a replace option on the bill is not going to cost anything.

It would have taken someone two seconds to disable to the 151 number so why the hell couldnââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t that person have spent two seconds more when doing this to place a vector to reroute it to the 0800number and problem solved.

Then when they dial the 151 they will still get to the same place all be it milliseconds longer which they wonââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t notice and then reducing any need for threads like this.

To disable the vector is just madness.

At the end of the day it is all about NTL keeping the customers informed which they seem to fail at every hurdle.

Some bright spark decided to disable it so they may as well when doing this change to the call vector had easily set it to divert rather than disconnect.

As for your joining the real world I am going to have to agree with Paul M here and you need to as well.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

A couple of points:

First off, I don't speak for ntl. Anyone who comes here should be aware of that, if they aren't, then they need to become aware of it pronto. It's an old trick to tell someone posting in their own time that they must be speaking for whatever company they are talking about.

Now, my point is that actually changing the number is not an issue. Having one single number for the whole country makes perfect sense. My ntl bill has only quoted that number for a long time, however, it would appear that bills in other regions haven't been altered and that, I agree, is very poor. Which is what led me to make my earlier remark; is there a possibility that the number has not been withdrawn, but is actually faulty in some way?

I wouldn't have thought the company would be stupid enough to cancel the number before altering the bills. I could be wrong. But it is THAT that leads me to wonder if the number might be broken. Being Easter there may not be people about to fix it.

My 'real world' comment was related more to the paragraph about credit control.

What I say in here has no bearing on my attitude to customer service or anything else. When I'm in work I am paid to do a job. When I am out of work, I am entitled to my own opinions like anyone else.

The problem with keeping short dial numbers is that, due to the numerous different types of telephone systems ntl use to supply the service in the different regions, it has to be a different number depending on where in the country you are. Mine has always been 1503, for example. This is quite pathetic and so some sort of change is inevitable. It does need to be communicated though.

Fine we all know you donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t speak for NTL thankfully but you have to remember people here will take this on board as the attitude portrayed here will give the impression of what members can expect from employees to a certain extent.

Reconsider that the number change is an issue for certain people as not all of them read this forum, and yes I agree that having a single number makes sense but not before advising people of this but then again this is the complete communications company we are talking of here so I guess not.

I think the company would have made this choice to cancel the number without thinking it through as from experience as an Employee/Customer/Consultant I know how their mind sets work.

As for your last point as I know how call vectoring works there is no benefit on removing the 150/1503 options as at the end of the day it just vectors to the 0800 number and would have no real effect by removing it unless the main 0800 number was to be removed as it is just pointing it to another port as such.