- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
kwatt wrote: she’s quite obviously intelligent K.
That is why I would give her the money back, she will chase him till he pays so why go through the hassle.
I think we should still ask for a copy of the invoice from Miele and any paperwork that Tony gave her. Can you imagine what Tony would have to say if it was proved later that she had a pump and ccu fitted and we threw him off repairs@
We need the evidence to remove an agent and cant be seen to go on her word alone, if the invoice showed a blocked pr switch then thats fine as long as Tony’s paperwork showed a quote for a ccu and pump.
John
Re: Something to Do
Reply from Tony Clifton…
Tony Clifton wrote:sorry for delay been out of the office, the problem with this mrs plumley is that we made a couple of mistakes 1st off we sent a engineer who does not have much knowledge in dealing with miele machines and 2nd he made a mistake of saying he thought it could be fault with pressure sensor on the pcb. we now hold are hands up to it and say yes we made a mistake we are only human after all,and did offer to go back to sort the machine but mrs plumley has now had miele in to fix the machine.
Note no mention of a refund. I’ll ask him about it.
K.
Re: Something to Do
Unless he’s employed someone recently, Tony has no “engineers”, it’s just him and occasionally his brother.
Where he gets the “we” sent…. 😕
Basically he went himself if you read the customer’s letter and is trying to pass the buck.
IMO anyway 🙂
Dave.
Re: Something to Do
I don’t want to bias this, so I’m not going to offer any comment until there’s some opinion. Tony’s reply to me.
Tony Clifton wrote:no not yet as we said before we went out that there is a call out fee of £40 to pay even if we cant fix it as we have to pay travel costs and for engineer..which she agreed to before we even booked the call i dont think we should refund other wise if we did that to every job that cant be repaired we wouldnt make any money, we are running a business and need to make a living out it, its hard enough these days without having stress of said customers, even spoke to boiler engineer who dealt with her and had same problem as his part took wk to get she stopped cheque on him..
K.
Re: Something to Do
I note he said the machine could not be repaired, neither the customer of the Meile engineer would agree with that I’m sure.
Hand on heart, how many of us in reality are unable to complete a call? Yes it happens but very rare, and I cannot think of any where we have thrown the towel in. In this case it WAS repairable, and he got it wrong. We all do, and hopefully not very often. I think he ought to put his hand in his pocket. If he really has a problem regards refunds, using the excuse that he would never make money, tells me this a regular event.
If we anticipate a problem on a machine that we are not overly familiar with, then we tend not to take it on, or would accept the fact it is beyond our skills and not bill the customer.
I’m with the customer on this one.
Alex
Re: Something to Do
Alex wrote:I’m with the customer on this one.
Me too, it’s definitely a refund due given the circumstances.
Dave.
Re: Something to Do
Think about it this way, we go out to a customer and charge £40 for an estimate/call out thats fine, The customer says no thanks dont want it fixed or the appliance is ber then we keep the £40
We go to the same customer, havent got a clue whats wrong, bung a timer and a pressure switch on an estimate hoping she will ber it and collect the £40
The customer calls in a 3rd party who repairs without parts meaning we have cocked up/conned her on the first visit so we cannot keep the money and have to refund.Tony has not got a leg to stand on here, he said
there is a call out fee of £40 to pay even if we cant fix it
The point is he could have fixed it so he has to admit he was wrong and pay up.
JohnRe: Something to Do
johnmac11 wrote:The point is he could have fixed it so he has to admit he was wrong and pay up.
He already did, read up a few posts to his first response that he gave me.
K.
Re: Something to Do
johnmac11 wrote:The point is he could have fixed it so he has to admit he was wrong and pay up.
I agree.
Chris.Re: Something to Do
kwatt wrote:
johnmac11 wrote:
The point is he could have fixed it so he has to admit he was wrong and pay up.He already did, read up a few posts to his first response that he gave me.
K.
What I meant was that he has to admit that he is in the wrong not to pay back the £40
John
Re: Something to Do
johnmac11 wrote:
What I meant was that he has to admit that he is in the wrong not to pay back the £40
JohnI think he ought to do both. This woman could well be trouble, and perhaps being over the top, but to restore his name etc. he needs to get rid of her, and the best way is a refund. If it was me, I would actually add a bunch of flowers as well. Works wonders with a woman.
Alex
Re: Something to Do
It is my personal opinion that if this guy does not refund this customer then we should consider doing it, as UKW.
Thankfully we have had very few problems to deal with in all honesty. This could be done low key and with the qualifying statement of ‘Without Predudice’. We should also inform the customer in question that this particular member has been removed from the list’s due to the fact that he has not met the terms and conditions as laid down by our members charter that he was required to adhere too.
I also believe that we should consider all such future eventualities being covered by an insurance backed scheme to which all Repairs @ members contribute a small levy comensurate with the volume of calls they recieve.
I am sure that this could be done for a very small sum and would give customers a double layer of protection that few other services could offer.
Thoughts gentlemen. Oh ! and John too
Re: Something to Do
Zip it sheepshagger or I will tell Shirley you are talking about me……
I thought the idea was if someone did not refund monies owed then the cash would be taken from the subscribers fund. If it was a major claim for damage etc, then their insurance companie would need to sort it out.
John
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.