Compensation for loss of service?

[Nemesis]

So .....

NTL have no guarantee that matches BT ..... so what ...

NTL will use best endeavours to rectify a fault.
BT will use best endeavours to rectify a fault.

If the NTL fault is an extended fault they do on occasion offer compensation, if you ask for it.
If the BT fault is an extended fault they do offer compensation, if you ask for it.

BT have been going a lot longer than NTL, and the guarantee quoted earlier is strictly for phone lines only. NTL have a more diverse product range, and still have some ground to catch up on, but I will say again, they are getting better.

The recent problem I had with the phone line bore that out too. Not everyone who has experienced a fault will automatically clamber on the compensation bandwagon, most are just happy that the fault has been rectified.

I'm not saying that NTL are wonderful in all aspects of their business, the CS experience really needs attention, but they are getting better.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Guarantees are subjective ... it's all down to the small print.

A Guarantee entitles the user/purchaser to receive a replacement product, or have the faulty goods fixed. That's basically it.

BT offer no better a guarantee that NTL, when applied to the service, as BT cannot offer a "fault free service".

How each company deals with a fault/problem is extremely diverse. To compare BT with NTL on this point is unfair.

Actually, I think that a guarantee, when applied to a service with no actual physical product (such as a phone service) implies certain levels of service.

True, BT cannot guarantee a fault free service, nobody can. You can have the most advanced and best maintained phone network in the world, but all it takes is for someone to dig through one of the cables and you get a fault. I don't think anyone expects NTL to offer this.

It's also true that how each company reacts to a fault is different. This is where I think NTL could improve. Looking through their site, BT do NOT guarantee a fault free service. They do, however, state that in the event of a fault, they will offer free call diversion (don't know if NTL do this), and offer compensation.

So, Nemy, I do not understand how you can say BT and NTL cannot be compared in this way. Both TelCos do suffer faults. Both do (in my experience) fix them quickly, but, if BT fail the customer in any way, they compensate (according to the website, in most cases it is automatic). NTL don't do this without asking. IMO. if NTL want to compete with BT (and they do need to), they should do this.

One final point: When I was first upgraded to 1Mb, I had major problems with the STB dropping the connection (actually, at one point I was without any broadband connection for nearly two weeks). It took several phonecalls and about 4 or 5 engineer visits to convince NTL that there was a fault with the STB, and that the problem wasn't with my own hardware (which, being a technician, I could have told them over the phone). I did feel at the time that I should have been offered some sort of compensation for this. I shouldn't have had to ask.

Edit: Having said all that, I am with both BT and NTL, and I can honestly say that I have had very few problems that either company have not sorted out quickly, so I have no real complaints about either company.

Originally Posted by Nemesis

So .....

NTL have no guarantee that matches BT ..... so what ...

NTL will use best endeavours to rectify a fault.
BT will use best endeavours to rectify a fault.

If the NTL fault is an extended fault they do on occasion offer compensation, if you ask for it.
If the BT fault is an extended fault they do offer compensation, if you ask for it.

But as I pointed out above, I do not believe that issues of "fault" in the sense it is being commonly use here apply. This is not a "fault" in the technical sense which could be unavoidable, this is a "fault" in terms of personal or systemic incompetance.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by scastle

<snip>
So, Nemy, I do not understand how you can say BT and NTL cannot be compared in this way. Both TelCos do suffer faults. Both do (in my experience) fix them quickly, but, if BT fail the customer in any way, they compensate. NTL don't do this.

BT will offer it if asked, NTL do on occasion. I believe that on this occasion the customer encountered an unsupportive CS employee. IMO the CS should have been more co-operative with the customer, and need to offer a uniform level of Customer Support. This I believe will come with time, the franchises operate independently, the networks are different, even down to the phone service. With such a fractured infrastructure as this, it will be difficult for NTL to provide the same uniform level of CS that BT do.

Things are getting better, and as things progress the CS level of support will increase too. I don't believe that there is any real policy within NTL to fix problems to any timescale, certainly not that can be applied across the whole group. Best endeavours is what you will get, and some will be better than others.

Slowly the fragmentation will decrease, NTL are/have already invested heavily in the BB Network for the upcoming upgrades, hopefully this will continue with further investment in other areas of their infrastructure.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

BT will offer it if asked, NTL do on occasion.

The difference is that BT have to because they have a service guarantee.

ntl have no such guarantee if they let you down-I wonder why.....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

BT will offer it if asked, NTL do on occasion. I believe that on this occasion the customer encountered an unsupportive CS employee. IMO the CS should have been more co-operative with the customer, and need to offer a uniform level of Customer Support. This I believe will come with time, the franchises operate independently, the networks are different, even down to the phone service. With such a fractured infrastructure as this, it will be difficult for NTL to provide the same uniform level of CS that BT do.

<snip>

Fair enough. As I have said in the past, all companies do have good and bad employees. BT has been touted many times on this site as an example of good service, but I have had variable service from them too (sometimes good, sometimes bad). Same with NTL really.

The loss of broadband example I gave above isn't really anyones fault (it was a dying STB), but I wasn't too impressed that each time I called, I had to go through exactly the same procedure (which didn't work reliably the first time I did it, so I didn't hold out too much hope for all the others). It was as if whoever I spoke to wasn't actually logging that I had had problems, so the next C/S person didn't know I'd been through the procedure.

But, eventually, I managed to persuade an engineer to give me a new STB, and that solved the problem.

BTW, Nemesis, according to the website, if BT do disconnect you accidently, they automatically offer compensation. I see no reason why NTL could not do this. They would need to do what BT have done, and ensure processes and safeguards are put in place to prevent problems, but BT have managed it, NTL should be able to eventually.

[seaneeboy]

Nemmy's just hit upon the crux for me - the level of Customer support we get from NTL should be uniform and fair, not a lottery of how generous the operator is feeling.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by scastle

BTW, Nemesis, according to the website, if BT do disconnect you accidently, they automatically offer compensation. I see no reason why NTL could not do this. They would need to do what BT have done, and ensure processes and safeguards are put in place to prevent problems, but BT have managed it, NTL should be able to eventually.

Originally Posted by Neil

The difference is that BT have to because they have a service guarantee.

ntl have no such guarantee if they let you down-I wonder why.....

[Neil]

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

Nemmy's just hit upon the crux for me - the level of Customer support we get from NTL should be uniform and fair, not a lottery of how generous the operator is feeling.

That is absolutely spot on.

The difference is with BT, that it doesn't matter one iota what the CSR thinks you are entitled to for 'X' fault, the BT Guarantee clearly & openly states what you will receive.

[SMHarman]

This whole £10 a month = 33p a day thing is not compensation, it is restitution, you paid for a contracted service that did not operate so therefore it is probably illegal to take money for something you did not proved.

Compensation goes over and above refunding the monies for the days you did not have a service (i.e. pro rata charging for the working period of the month).

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

This whole £10 a month = 33p a day thing is not compensation, it is restitution, you paid for a contracted service that did not operate so therefore it is probably illegal to take money for something you did not proved.

Compensation goes over and above refunding the monies for the days you did not have a service (i.e. pro rata charging for the working period of the month).

So what compensation do you think is due for 3 days loss of phone line?

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Neil

Do ntl have such a gurantee? (no)

Agreed, I've looked and spoken to them, and there is no such guarantee .... , but I still stand by my points above.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by orangebird

So what compensation do you think is due for 3 days loss of phone line?

Personally, it's not about the phone line costs, it's about the way that the problem was handled (or not)

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by orangebird

So what compensation do you think is due for 3 days loss of phone line?

/waits for "Same as BT" .....

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Neil

Personally, it's not about the phone line costs, it's about the way that the problem was handled (or not)

yep, agreed .... this thread was not as much about compensation, as how the customer was handled.