SD : Call centre staff refusing to compensate disabled customer.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nothing lol, both he and I enjoy listening to Radio 4.

I suspect you are right, but it was the tone of voice that annoyed me more than anything.

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

[weegiegeek]

Originally Posted by Bogof

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

What gave you that idea?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I couldn't have done as you suggested as I don't live near to him and have disabilities myself

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I never thought about using an all in one, I could possibly have purchased one and took it up for him.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I live too far away to go round myself..

[neilo]

Is the op Carl in disguise?

[danielf]

No. Carl wasn't half as sanctimonious.

[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.

[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?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I went on to explain to him that the box and remote were on hire and that VM were under an obligation to repair or replace them.

His response was to ask what was wrong with the remote, I explained that I had no idea as it was not one of my fields of expertise. We then got into a drawn out and protracted discussion about the remote and it's problems with functioning!

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Would Sky have managed the same?

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.

[Russ]

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.

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?

[BenMcr]

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?

Obviously can't comment on the call as wasn't party to it, but it's standard diagnostic practice as defined by the business that the agents ask certain questions about the remote such as 'have you replaced the batteries' and whether/how it was damaged.

This then tells the agent whether the remote replacement should be chargeable or not

[kop32]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Obviously can't comment on the call as wasn't party to it, but it's standard diagnostic practice as defined by the business that the agents ask certain questions about the remote such as 'have you replaced the batteries' and whether/how it was damaged.

This then tells the agent whether the remote replacement should be chargeable or not

Ben, regardless of what is standard procedure used by the Agent they had agreed to replace the remote with free postage and package I suspect,the main issue is the outrageous claim for compensation.....its a PVR and the lack of being able to use it properly is hardly life threatening and even worse is playing the disability card,shame on the OP in my opinion.

[dilli-theclaw]

Just s quick comment to say that sky did indeed send me a replacement remote in the post when I needed it.

As it happens they also do a special one for people with some disabilities which is also free.

[Perfect Choice]

Originally Posted by kop32

Ben, regardless of what is standard procedure used by the Agent they had agreed to replace the remote with free postage and package I suspect,the main issue is the outrageous claim for compensation.....its a PVR and the lack of being able to use it properly is hardly life threatening and even worse is playing the disability card,shame on the OP in my opinion.

Agreed, the OP stated mid way through the post that the failure of the remote was down to wear and tear after 10 years of use. The fact the TV was on radio 4 is a customer choice prior to remote failure and TV service was still available so crazy to consider compensation is justified, that was the mistake of the OP to even think it was something which could be asked for.

There is a very simple answer to this problem for the future and I recommend the disabled person concerned should do this. They should simply buy an extra remote on top of the one provided so have 2 remotes and if one fails you can put the batteries in the other and you can continue to control your box!

Considering the level of disability and not intending to be disrespectful, I assume the person is claiming disability living allowance and that is meant to fund the extra costs a disabled person incurs to have a reasonable quality of living. So you can pay for the extra remote out of the £21 or £134.40 per week DLA provides.

[Chad]

I've yet to see anyone agree with the original posters point of view at all. Seems a fairly closed case to me. Virgin in the right, original poster on a different planet.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Perfect Choice

Considering the level of disability and not intending to be disrespectful, I assume the person is claiming disability living allowance and that is meant to fund the extra costs a disabled person incurs to have a reasonable quality of living. So you can pay for the extra remote out of the £21 or £134.40 per week DLA provides.

Just to make something absolutely clear in case anybody is tempted to take this off-topic, the above is a legitimate point for discussion however that is not to be discussed in this thread.