Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
[Primetime] Service with a snarl
Options
Comments
-
As for that idiot from UCD with his "'Have a nice day' is customer service". If that's what they're teaching the business graduates, no wonder things are in such a state.
Storker
It must be said, that UCD guy FUNDAMENTALLY missed the point.....customer service is about saying your going to do something....and then doing it....."have a nice day" is the most basic possible way of describing it and misses every glaring requirement and essential subtlety along the way.0 -
My customer service pet hate is the "blind transfer". This is when you get on to a nine-year-old in a call centre and tell them your problem...the nine-year-old then transfers you to a queue staffed by eleven-year-olds who have never heard of you and you have to tell your story all over again etc etc.
In a previous life I worked in a call centre that had quite strict rules about customer service and blind-transferring customers to other sections - in short, you didn't do it - it was one of the worst sins you could commit. Another rule, tying in with the previous one, was that when you took a call, you took ownership of it, meaning that you either solved the customer's problem yourself, or you transferred them to someone who could - making sure before you transferred them that (a) the person to whom they were being transferred could actually help them and (b) the person to who they were being transferred was briefed about the background to the call before the customer was transferred. In other words, they didn't have to keep repeating themselves to drones who couldn't or wouldn't do anything for them anyway.
We were helped in this by the computer system - a fairly old-fashioned piece of software, it had one crucial feature - a "page" at the end of all the screens called "Notes". As the name suggests, you could type in text in order to convey information that couldn't be conveyed using another part of the system e.g. "this customer has been having a problem with..." auto-stamped with the date and the ID of the rep who made the entry. Part of the training, of course, was that you read the bloody notes before you made any statements to the customer about what you could or couldn't do for them.
Another way of providing better customer service was during very busy periods when the volume of call traffic couldn't be kept up with, was to take one or two reps and put them onto taking messages for callbacks. They would answer calls, apologise and explain that the call couldn't be dealt with right now but if the customer would provide contact details, someone would call them back before close of business or some other specified time the same day. This had the advantage of getting sufficient customers out of the queue so that the reps could handle the remainder and avoided customers giving up in disgust without having spoken to anyone. Even if a customer had to wait for a callback, at least they had got through to a person and had not had to leave a message on an impersonal voicemail. Once the rush was over, the callbacks would be distributed among the reps who would consult the person's details on the system (including their notes!) so that the call would go something like "Hello Mr. X, sorry we couldn't take your call earlier but thing have quietened down a bit now and I see from your details that..." etc.
Some simple ideas there, but from dealing with companies today as a customer, I know that they aren't being used, and yet they can make such a difference to the customer experience.
The bottom line rules, unfortunately, and these companies have discovered that treating the customer with contempt serves the bottom line better. That combined with the fact that we really don't complain regularly enough or loudly enough. I have to hold my hand up there too...
Storker0 -
I know your man Barney Farrell who had a billing issue with one of the phone operators. Tell you something ,it was heavily edited as he is a gas bloke and doesn't take any sh.. .
Own experience was with ntl, always screwing up the bills and roiling me . Drove down once to their hq in east point B P AND GAVE THEM BACK THEIR DECODER .Waste of space but most providers of all our utilities are the same . The esb voice activated response service is a joke, am always loosing the plot with a MACHINE who cant understand my Accent, HELLO.:mad::mad::mad:0 -
My customer service pet hate is the "blind transfer". This is when you get on to a nine-year-old in a call centre and tell them your problem...the nine-year-old then transfers you to a queue staffed by eleven-year-olds who have never heard of you and you have to tell your story all over again etc etc..................
.....................
The bottom line rules, unfortunately, and these companies have discovered that treating the customer with contempt serves the bottom line better. That combined with the fact that we really don't complain regularly enough or loudly enough. I have to hold my hand up there too...
Storker
Some excellent points there. It is not just companies who have a lot to learn though. During the recent heavy rains the area I live in was threatened with flooding (in fact only a guy managed to get a manhole cover lifted we would have had several houses flooded) I tried ringing Dublin City Council but of course they were permanently engaged.
Surely what should happen in these emergencies is that there is some form of call back which will ensure that all areas in trouble can register their distress. In the absence of any such system people will just ring and ring thereby making matters worse etc etc.
It also means that DCC do not have a proper record of the areas flooded.
I subsequently phoned later in the week to suggest an improved phone system you can imagine what I was told yourselves:rolleyes:
On another occassion recently on a call to DCC I spent 19 minutes waiting on an operator to answer - the phone had of course been 'answered' so I was paying for the pleasure of hearing what number I was in the queue!
By the way RTE have an excellent call back system.0 -
therewillbe wrote: »I know your man Barney Farrell who had a billing issue with one of the phone operators. Tell you something ,it was heavily edited as he is a gas bloke and doesn't take any sh.. .
Own experience was with ntl, always screwing up the bills and roiling me . Drove down once to their hq in east point B P AND GAVE THEM BACK THEIR DECODER .Waste of space but most providers of all our utilities are the same . The esb voice activated response service is a joke, am always loosing the plot with a MACHINE who cant understand my Accent, HELLO.:mad::mad::mad:
A friend of mine also went down there out of total frustration to hand in a letter. He found it very difficult to get a member of staff to come down to collect the letter. He was told that they did not have a 'customer interface' there!!
The NTL answering machine 'gives out' when you dont have you account number for it!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
My customer service pet hate is the "blind transfer". This is when you get on to a nine-year-old in a call centre and tell them your problem...the nine-year-old then transfers you to a queue staffed by eleven-year-olds who have never heard of you and you have to tell your story all over again etc etc.
In a previous life I worked in a call centre that had quite strict rules about customer service and blind-transferring customers to other sections - in short, you didn't do it - it was one of the worst sins you could commit. Another rule, tying in with the previous one, was that when you took a call, you took ownership of it, meaning that you either solved the customer's problem yourself, or you transferred them to someone who could - making sure before you transferred them that (a) the person to whom they were being transferred could actually help them and (b) the person to who they were being transferred was briefed about the background to the call before the customer was transferred. In other words, they didn't have to keep repeating themselves to drones who couldn't or wouldn't do anything for them anyway.
These systems save money for the operator, in terms of duplicated work, wasted time and unnecessary mistakes. I suspect that in most instances, such systems are in place, but just aren't used properly by some operators.
I see lack of accountability as the major problem. By and large, customer service reps are only trained and authorised to handle one element of the system - tech, billing, cancellations etc. It is too easy to pass the buck in that scenario. As you described, having one rep 'own' the problem is the only way to go.0 -
I certainly agree with the blind transfer and other points made by storker. It really seems like pot luck with the type of representitive you get on the phone. Some are very helpful, whilst others are the script only types and seem to not actually listen. They seem to be more interested of going through the predefined motions and then they are in the clear, whether the customer has resolved the issue or not.
Dell (home systems especially) support were terrible for a number of years but have improved alot since then. I find some of the Indian call centre people you get transferred to with Dell extremely polite to the point of it is kind of funny.0 -
Is this show on Youtube?...i missed it!0
-
Some interesting points here. I'll try to answer some of them from my viewpoint, as I've been involved in the industry here and abroad from front line support to management level, both in a smaller independent but very customer centric ISP that got bought out by a bigger mass market operator and a multinational, I believe I might be able to give an insight.Just to continue my obsession with dd's.
But this demonstrates another flaw in the direct debit system - it is impossible for the customer to ensure that they get the correct notice. IPSO were openly contemptuous of my complaint when I spoke to them about it.
I think the problem here lies that the reason that companies are re-activating DD's (from my experience anyway) would be because of that they owe the companies money or have got into some payment disputes no? Whilst in my personal opinion I would not ever advocate reactivating these DD's under any circumstance, some people just won't pay and will convientnly forget that part of the story when running off to someone.0 -
It is probably on RTE.ieRichard Dower wrote: »Is this show on Youtube?...i missed it!
Look at the Prime Time section0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22314
I think the problem here lies that the reason that companies are re-activating DD's (from my experience anyway) would be because of that they owe the companies money or have got into some payment disputes no? Whilst in my personal opinion I would not ever advocate reactivating these DD's under any circumstance, some people just won't pay and will convientnly forget that part of the story when running off to someone.
But what if the person doesn't want to pay because the company isn't delivering the service or massively over charged the customer (personally experienced with BT), surely that person has every right to with hold payment until the issue is corrected.0 -
I think the problem here lies that the reason that companies are re-activating DD's (from my experience anyway) would be because of that they owe the companies money or have got into some payment disputes no? Whilst in my personal opinion I would not ever advocate reactivating these DD's under any circumstance, some people just won't pay and will convientnly forget that part of the story when running off to someone.
There is no justification for reactivating direct debits - none. You are supposedly given a guarantee under the direct debit system that a cancelled direct debit stays cancelled simple as that. As I understand it from talking to people in the banks the banks systems cannot detect cancelled direct debits as they can say a cancelled cheque because direct debits do not carry individiual identification numbers.
Even if a person owes a company money that company has no right to access that persons bank account. I believe that any reactivation of a direct debit should be regarded as attempted fraud. After all if the Gardai have to get a warrant to access a persons house why should anyone be able to access a bank account willy nilly?
To me accessing a bank account without permission is exactly the same as breaking into a person's house. In fact the dd scam is more convenient as the money is readily available - if you break into the house you face a search for the money!!
I must say I am apalled that anyone would attempt to justify such behaviour even if they wouldnt do it themselves!!!
I can only imagine what would happen to a customer owed money by a 'mass market operator' who decided to take the law into his own hands and hacked into the company's bank account and debited the money. Would he receive the nice cuddly treatment that these direct debit reinstaters receive?:rolleyes:
And there have been plenty of examples here of reactivating dds after people cancelled their accounts in the proper way.
There is no justification for such behaviour none!! It cannot be repeated often enough.0 -
I think it's wrong to demand DD so as a customer can access a service. I refuse to sign upto any DD because of my previous billing issues...i don't like thinking a company has permission to dip into my bank account and take out ANY ammount they choose, mistakes do happen...they happened to me.0
-
Can i add, i hate the fact (Chorus) that companies charge a penalty to customers who refuse to sign a DD, i get charged €3 every month because i refuse to allow access to my bank account. It's a practice that should be stopped.0
-
But what if the person doesn't want to pay because the company isn't delivering the service or massively over charged the customer (personally experienced with BT), surely that person has every right to with hold payment until the issue is corrected.
Yes indeed you and many others and often people debited huge amounts without any notice whatsoever. Well documented on here and In flagrant breach of the direct debit system. And did anything happen to them????
The direct debit system is just one way of paying a bill and thats all it should be not a license to raid a person's bank account or credit card with impunity0 -
Richard Dower wrote: »Can i add, i hate the fact (Chorus) that companies charge a penalty to customers who refuse to sign a DD, i get charged €3 every month because i refuse to allow access to my bank account. It's a practice that should be stopped.
Yes weren't our politicians supposed to stop this but 'industry pressure' stalled them.
Also what customers signing up for direct debits are not told is that they are liable for bank charges AND in certain cases additional penalty charges by the companies themselves if they miss a direct debit payment. ESB do this and UPC too. So it can cost upwards of €25 euro to miss a direct debit payment.
I believe these additonal charges are illegal as customers are not told of them when they sign the direct debit mandate.
I pursued this with IPSO who typically said it had nothing go to do with them but should be pursued with the company concerned:mad:0 -
I think the problem here lies that the reason that companies are re-activating DD's (from my experience anyway) would be because of that they owe the companies money or have got into some payment disputes no? Whilst in my personal opinion I would not ever advocate reactivating these DD's under any circumstance, some people just won't pay and will convientnly forget that part of the story when running off to someone.
You do realise that a company cannot under any circumstance legally re-activate a DD without the express permission of the account holder?0 -
MunsterCycling wrote: »You do realise that a company cannot under any circumstance legally re-activate a DD without the express permission of the account holder?
The poster appears to understand this but apparently can 'understand' why a company might not behave in this way!0 -
Yes I love it when the companies respond and say this customer's experience was 'untypical'. It would be great if the narrator could say Yes indeed it was untypical - as bad as this one was others were far far worse!!!
But it's PR at the end of the day isn't it? If you are going on TV you are not going to go on TV and say "Yes, of course everyone else has this problem" it makes the current customers more jittery and makes it harder to attract new customers, which in this market especially is almost like falling on your swordThe IPSO guy, as well as all the banks, should be grilled on the Direct Debit sham scheme. All the companies that have been proven, by customers, to have re-instated canceled direct debits, should also be called to answer, in person, for their actions.
How can 50,000* of the exact same complaint, with the exact same response, and the exact same outcome, all be one-offs?
Because if they are doing this, if they admitted to it they would be in serious trouble. So the company will spin it to being a one off, a systems error, or processing error, human error, anything like that. It's about saving face at the end of the day. Can you imagine if it got out, the consequences it would have for their business? Not saying it's right, just what happens.And also, that Irish people don't know what Customer Service is. I guess that applied to the people working in customer service, as well as the customers themselves.
In my view customer service should be putting the customer first, exceeding their expectations, giving them a positive experience of the company which in turn will generate extra business. Being friendly, helpful. not being a drone reading from a script, and to have decent knowledge in the area they are dealing with are all vital. However sometimes to employ someone with the knowledge required will cost more than the company wants to pay, and thats why you get the drones described previously.
I cannot say I would agree that everyone in this country cannot offer that, through my experiences here I've worked with some truly wonderful people, one person in particular was so dedicated to their job that they frequently got praise from customers due to their through and friendly manner. Of course you always get a few people who are not great, but to say there is nobody that knows what CS is about is very wide of the mark.The Dell case particularly where the customer service person refused to speak to her because she was a woman and hung up should be fired and Dell fined for allowing a customer to be sexually discriminated against when trying to get support under the warranty she paid for when she bought the product.
I didn't see the program so am going to need some background information here, but was the caller who called in the person who the order had been shipped to? If it had been shipped to a man and the woman called in, then based upon the Data Protection Act they do not have to speak to anyone but the account owner or person who placed the order. If however she was the customer, and they wouldn't agree to it, because she is a woman - then yes. I would feel the same was as you if one of my staff did the same.my understanding is that they outsource quite a substantial amount of their residential sales function...am i wrong?
I'm not sure about now, but I know that last time I heard, that Eircom use a mixture of Conduit and Stream in Eastpoint Business Park for much of their support and sales? So they'd be contractors.Sponge Bob wrote: »If the companies gave a damn the call centre would work properly and would deal with the customers when they rang .
There are companies out there with pretty good CS AND with pretty good support . O2 and Digiweb come to mind . Others only have fully staffed sales line, ask yourself how many times have you selected 'sales' when you wanted 'support' .
1. Ring up company x , select sales , see how long it takes to answer
2. ring back , select support or customer service or accounts , see how long it takes each of them to answer.!
In many companies sales teams may be operated by completely different companies/outsourcers. It's a fair bet that most sales teams would be based on commission and/or sales targets. Therefore the sales managers will get all the staff needed on board to hit these targets, as they'd get a return on their investment, whether that would be a bonus for meeting a threshold or a extra comission bounty etc.
With CC, sadly they're not really getting any money out of it if they're directly employed which makes them not be as staffed as highly as sales would be. If they're outsourced, which CC increasingly is these days, then they may want to get extra staff in to meet targets, but when I worked for a leading American Hardware manufacturer a few years ago, there were always ways to fiddle the statistics and targets that they were supposed to meet. I'm sure that this goes on in several places.In a previous life I worked in a call centre that had quite strict rules about customer service and blind-transferring customers to other sections - in short, you didn't do it - it was one of the worst sins you could commit. Another rule, tying in with the previous one, was that when you took a call, you took ownership of it, meaning that you either solved the customer's problem yourself, or you transferred them to someone who could - making sure before you transferred them that (a) the person to whom they were being transferred could actually help them and (b) the person to who they were being transferred was briefed about the background to the call before the customer was transferred.
You hit the nail on the head very well there. Thats exactly the way that I ran things myself. I absloutely hate blind transfers, it's nothing more than passing the buck to someone else, because you are too lazy to deal with it or simply don't want to. If you are passing the customer to someone else, I believe it's essential you explain you are doing this, why you are doing this, and give the agent you are passing the call to a full brief on this case and ensure they are actually going to be able to help you.
More common sense. In the companies I worked for we all had a noting or more commonly a ticketing system. It was compulsory for people to note down in cases of troubleshooting, full details of what the problem was, what they had tried, and if they resolved the problem a description of how they did so. However this needs close management/supervisor review, because with some agents they would just write "Customer had problem with internet. I fixed it" which is absloutely useless for the next time a customer calls in and has the same problem. I always trained my agents to read tickets about any re-occuring issue and feel this is this is the right way to go.We were helped in this by the computer system - a fairly old-fashioned piece of software, it had one crucial feature - a "page" at the end of all the screens called "Notes". As the name suggests, you could type in text in order to convey information that couldn't be conveyed using another part of the system e.g. "this customer has been having a problem with..." auto-stamped with the date and the ID of the rep who made the entry. Part of the training, of course, was that you read the bloody notes before you made any statements to the customer about what you could or couldn't do for them.
Please however bear in mind that the reasons some agents do not do great tickets may not necessairly be their fault. In some very high pressured call centers they are given some unrealistic time targets on how long they have to write tickets, number of calls taken, and how long the calls can take. They then are on another call before they can write a proper description, or come under increasing pressure to take more calls and then these tickets get left either unfinished or not with full details. Sometimes senior management do not realise this - they're too obssesed with targets, SLA's and figures. Obviously extra staff members would help here.
This was an idea that I used to use also, however, in outsourced call centers this is sometimes used not for this reason, but to drive down the average speed of answer that they are contracted to deliver to the provider rather than to provide better CS. Some providers, provide a service where it will estimate how long you will be in the queue for, or ring you back when you are in the front of a queue, this is useful as well, and I would say would help with customer satisifaction, however I've rarely seen this in Ireland, and I'm guessing that may be down to the cost of it.Another way of providing better customer service was during very busy periods when the volume of call traffic couldn't be kept up with, was to take one or two reps and put them onto taking messages for callbacks. They would answer calls, apologise and explain that the call couldn't be dealt with right now but if the customer would provide contact details, someone would call them back before close of business or some other specified time the same day. This had the advantage of getting sufficient customers out of the queue
They're simple ideas, but very good ones. The important thing to remember however is that not everyone working at supervisor/management/team leader/agent/senior agent level is not doing these practices on purpose. If you think that it's extremely naive. Mostly you have pressure from above making it like this. And as far as the senior management inthese companies will see, the bottom margin, particuarly in this climate, is always going to be the over-riding factor. At the end of the day an ISP is a business and exist to make money, and thats always going to come before customer happiness in nearly all companies. Just some have it closer to the underlaying profit in their priorities than others.Some simple ideas there, but from dealing with companies today as a customer, I know that they aren't being used, and yet they can make such a difference to the customer experience.
The bottom line rules, unfortunately, and these companies have discovered that treating the customer with contempt serves the bottom line better. That combined with the fact that we really don't complain regularly enough or loudly enough. I have to hold my hand up there too...A friend of mine also went down there out of total frustration to hand in a letter. He found it very difficult to get a member of staff to come down to collect the letter. He was told that they did not have a 'customer interface' there!!!
To be honest I'm not a person who would be fond of having my staff go down to collect letters or meet customers face to face. This is nothing to do with running and hiding at all. Simply because there have been some occasions, when we have had someone on the phone ranting and raving, and in some cases being very aggressive and threating to staff members and said they will come down to the office to "Have it out with us" face to face, and this kind of thing. It's not been unknown to get threatened with golf clubs amongst other things, so I don't think I could justify putting my staff in danger, however bad the issue is, I'd never put my staffs safety at risk.daveharnett wrote: »I see lack of accountability as the major problem. By and large, customer service reps are only trained and authorised to handle one element of the system - tech, billing, cancellations etc. It is too easy to pass the buck in that scenario. As you described, having one rep 'own' the problem is the only way to go.
But sometimes that does work better, because it means you have a skilled rep in the area you are speaking with. For example a billing rep may not have good technical knowledge and may not be able to get their head around techie issues, and the other way around for the technical issues. Obviously the easy way to get around this is to have seperate lines. But there is a downside with this. Can you guess what? Yep, once more, it costs more. I agree there should be ownership, but sometimes you are better off with specialised people.charlie_says wrote: »I certainly agree with the blind transfer and other points made by storker. It really seems like pot luck with the type of representitive you get on the phone. Some are very helpful, whilst others are the script only types and seem to not actually listen. They seem to be more interested of going through the predefined motions and then they are in the clear, whether the customer has resolved the issue or not.
It all comes down to cost at the end of the day. A well educated rep who knows what they are talking about does not come cheap at the end of the day, by hiring someone on attitude and not skill set, you could save say 3-4k on their salary. And thats what some companies will look at. You may begin to see a pattern here. At the end of the day it all comes down to money and efficiency. Particularly if you are only just about breaking even or are making a loss. Every cent/euro counts.
Saying that, you sometimes get the odd gem who may not be that educated in the subject matter, but is a quick learner, very friendly, comprehensive, dedicated and always goes the extra mile. These can be better than anyone, especially if they want to learn. But overall I'd pick the already skilled agent, because whilst it's no doubt more rewarding than anything to develop a new agent who is eager to learn, and help, and has a can-do attitude, and in turn develop their career, it's not very often you'll get someone like that.0 -
There is no justification for reactivating direct debits - none. You are supposedly given a guarantee under the direct debit system that a cancelled direct debit stays cancelled simple as that. As I understand it from talking to people in the banks the banks systems cannot detect cancelled direct debits as they can say a cancelled cheque because direct debits do not carry individiual identification numbers.
I must say I am apalled that anyone would attempt to justify such behaviour even if they wouldnt do it themselves!!!
There is no justification for such behaviour none!! It cannot be repeated often enough.
Please be aware I'm not justifying it - I agree totally with the above post. But just explaining why it may happen. I would be horrified if my ISP did the same to me, for the reasons you outline above.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think that dodgy customer service is a major negative when looking at service companies to give my custom to. I would love to have UPC 20mb bb but wont go with them because of all the horror stories i've heard and have had no problems with my BT bb for over a year (touch wood). Though i did have billing issues with BT at the start but i'm not willing to risk going through it all again.
I also for the present am sticking with upc's analogue tv as again i'm wary of the risks of having to deal with their eingeneers and customer service.
Same goes for paying the extra €3 for not using the dd scam.
So all in all i pay UPC around €23\month instead of a possible €79\month (for the max pack) and its all down to their lousy service.0 -
I think that dodgy customer service is a major negative when looking at service companies to give my custom to. I would love to have UPC 20mb bb but wont go with them because of all the horror stories i've heard and have had no problems with my BT bb for over a year (touch wood). Though i did have billing issues with BT at the start but i'm not willing to risk going through it all again.
I also for the present am sticking with upc's analogue tv as again i'm wary of the risks of having to deal with their eingeneers and customer service.
Same goes for paying the extra €3 for not using the dd scam.
So all in all i pay UPC around €23\month instead of a possible €79\month (for the max pack) and its all down to their lousy service.
What baffles me about UPC/NTL/chorus is that they have been so consistenly bad for so long. They were bad enough before UPC took over and you would think that UPC being such a big company could have brought some professionalism but they actually managed to make a bad situation worse. They are obviously aware of it as their managers make very promises every so often in the newspapers and it just contiues to degenerate.
It takes a lot of effort to be as consistently bad as they are. I wonder if any of their own staff ever ring up to experience the uniqueness of the UPC customer service experience?0 -
It takes a lot of effort to be as consistently bad as they are. I wonder if any of their own staff ever ring up to experience the uniqueness of the UPC customer service experience?
i've heard the boss of UPC Ireland say on a few radio interviews when he was tackled over it that he has rang them himself but surprise surprise he never experiences the problems. Mind you he probably is only testing the wait time and not actually trying to get a billing\service problem fixed.0 -
i've heard the boss of UPC Ireland say on a few radio interviews when he was tackled over it that he has rang them himself but surprise surprise he never experiences the problems. Mind you he probably is only testing the wait time and not actually trying to get a billing\service problem fixed.
It is absurd that you have to key in an account number or a telephone number (associated with the account) before you can actually speak to someone. I wonder for example if it is legitimate for them to demand a telephone number be associated with the account? I dont want them to have a telephone number associated with my account as I dont see any reason for it whatsoever.
But an old lady in her 80's who lives near me was almost reduced to tears in frustration recently trying to get to talk to someone in UPC to report a general breakdown in the area. It is hard enough for this lady to actually dial a number without being required then to key further stuff in. But all of these companies appear to set up the system to suit themselves rather than their customers' requirements.0 -
Not really. It's a way of cutting down on the muppets who, despite previously being told at the very start of a call to have their account number to hand, have to go off and look for their account number as soon as they get through to someone because guess what, they don't have it.It is absurd that you have to key in an account number or a telephone number (associated with the account) before you can actually speak to someone.0 -
Kensington wrote: »Not really. It's a way of cutting down on the muppets who, despite previously being told at the very start of a call to have their account number to hand, have to go off and look for their account number as soon as they get through to someone because guess what, they don't have it.
And why exactly do you need an account number to report a fault?0 -
So they can book/log the fault? So they could tell if it's just you with the fault or is it a local outage? So they can see what equipment is in your house, if the fault was a problem restricted to you? So they can troubleshoot over the phone?And why exactly do you need an account number to report a fault?0 -
Kensington wrote: »So they can book/log the fault? So they could tell if it's just you with the fault or is it a local outage? So they can see what equipment is in your house, if the fault was a problem restricted to you? So they can troubleshoot over the phone?
None of that requires an account number.0 -
So let's imagine a scenario that you ring up to say your TV isn't working - UPC magically know where you live, that you just happen to have digital TV service from them, your digital viewing card number for that box causing you problems and the packages/channels you're supposed to receive?None of that requires an account number.
I really don't see what the issue about having to type in an account number is tbh. If it helps to cut down on call holding and call duration times, go for it. It takes long enough to get through to them, if that can cut down on the time then I don't see what the issue is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kensington wrote: »So let's imagine a scenario that you ring up to say your TV isn't working - UPC magically know where you live, that you just happen to have digital TV service from them, your digital viewing card number for that box causing you problems and the packages/channels you're supposed to receive?
I really don't see what the issue about having to type in an account number is tbh. If it helps to cut down on call holding and call duration times, go for it. It takes long enough to get through to them, if that can cut down on the time then I don't see what the issue is.
I have to say i do agree here, o2 have a system like this (your mobile phone number and date of birth [security]) and it works very well for me.....
To be honest we are going off point here......the prime time special was more about incompentence and avoiding the customer than companies putting together systems that might speed up the customer service workers access to the appropriate information.0
Advertisement