- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Something to Do
Keep it simple – pay the £40 as above and tell Tony he’s off ’til he pays UKW.
Chris.
Re: Something to Do
I think if the subs fund has to pay the £40 because he refuses then he should be removed from repairs@ for good.
JohnRe: Something to Do
Maybe, but issue the demand first. If he won’t cough the dosh, then boot him out.
Chris.
Re: Something to Do
Reply sent this evening…
kwatt wrote:Hi Tony,
I had to go back to the AC with your comments and, to be honest, they’ve come back with pretty much what I expected that they would. The basic gist of it is as follows.
If you admit to making a couple of mistakes, as you have, then why should the customer have to pay for those mistakes? They are after all your errors, not the customers.
If it were any one of the AC, remember this covers sole traders as well, then they too would have just refunded and be done with it rather than causing an issue over £40. Do you intend to refund the lady or not?
Two members actually said they’d have sent the lady her money and a bunch of flowers to appease the situation.
The history of the customer is irrelevant in this instance as, by your own admission, errors were made.
Should you choose not to refund then we likely will be forced to offer the lady some compensation and follow the charter.
K.
Now, there’s a bit of a play here.
TBH I want to kick the guy off and, if I’m really honest, I’ve been looking for an excuse to do it. This strikes me as the perfect opportunity to do so.
My opinion is that, simply, he’s f***ed it up big style and he should pay to put it right or fook off. I’d rather the latter. Unlike certain other organisations I want to kick the idiots into touch and get rid of them, if I could ban him from the forums as well I’d likely do it, but that may be a little on the harsh side.
However, don’t get me wrong, it’s not the fact that he’s cocked it up that makes me think that way at all, we all make mistakes, how we deal with those defines us and our business. No, it’s the fact that the prat has lied about it to try to save himself a measly £40 that’s annoyed me still more.
K.
Re: Something to Do
Del wrote: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’. .
Thoughts gentlemen. Oh ! and John tooWith or without predudice, as soon as we make the offer, we could appear liable. I’m sure all is kosher with this customer, however we don’t know if this could escalate and we become resposible for even more; dangerous terrirory, and we need to step back from it.
I’m not too bothered if we do pay it, not my money directly, but I really feel it is up him to sort this. I thought our brief was to arbitrate and assist towards an amicable conclusion for all parties.
Best course of action is what we have done to date. He signed up knowing the T&C’s and our role, if he didn’t read it, then his tough whassisname. He can still be booted off as he clearly has tried to wriggle out of his obligations, and tried not to honour the agreement laid as down.
Alex
Re: Something to Do
I’ve been thinking about this a bit the past few days. Basically here’s what I think…
Tony Clifton has not responded to my last PM despite having read it and being on UKW several times, so that’s another person off my Christmas Card list this year. :rolls:
So, in effect, he’s banned himself by his actions, which TBH suits everyone I should think.
IF it is decided that we should reimburse the lady, who to be fair has been as good as gold with us, I think that it should be offered as “a gesture of goodwill” on behalf of the UKW Subscribers and NOT UK Whitegoods as such.
Thoughts?
K.
Re: Something to Do
Just a thought that popped into my head on reimbursement, has the fact that we are talking about spending subscribers money on cases like this been discussed in the subscribers forum??
Johnkwatt wrote:I dunno, I cant’ remember what I had for Lunch fro God’s sake! :lol:K.
JD and chips 😆
Point I am making though is that we are deciding to spend money belonging to the masses without their knowledge. Surely we should be asking the subscibers for a vote on spending subs this way. I know the cost is bugger all but we might get some grief if it was open knowledge later that we spent funds in this way.
Johnjohnmac11 wrote:
Point I am making though is that we are deciding to spend money belonging to the masses without their knowledge. Surely we should be asking the subscibers for a vote on spending subs this way. I know the cost is bugger all but we might get some grief if it was open knowledge later that we spent funds in this way.
JohnMost certainly the subscribers need to be aware as to what & why this is happening, I’m almost tempted to say we should name & shame the guy.
To be honest I see no reason why we cannot just tell the lady that Tony Clifton by means of default has been removed from Repairs@. She may get satisfaction in that alone, and the rest is up to her. After all if she wants to escalate the affair direct with Tony C, than so be it; CCJ, Trading Standards, Citizens Advice or solicitors letter, whatever suits her.
Alex
Alex wrote:To be honest I see no reason why we cannot just tell the lady that Tony Clifton by means of default has been removed from Repairs@. She may get satisfaction in that alone, and the rest is up to her.
I’d go along with that Alex to be honest.
IMO, the sub’s money should not be used to reimburse in cases like this. At the end of the day, UKW or anyone else apart from the recipient of the service call request makes any money from any repairs@ referal ….
It’s down to Tony I think.
Dave.
My vote’s with UKW not paying up as well, it smacks of admitting some liability IMO. We’ve done all we can.
K.
kwatt wrote:My vote’s with UKW not paying up as well, it smacks of admitting some liability IMO.
Um, aren’t the subscribers a part of UKW as well? All we’d be doing is localising responsibility within UKW.
A clean breast is probably the best way – one’s of ours has cocked up and now he’s out of here. System at work, no subterfuge. Subscribers accounts won’t show mysterious deducted £40…….
Chris.
Re: Something to Do
Just a thought but could we at the very least inform the customer that he has been removed from our list as a direct result of refusing to abide by the decision of the UKW A.C. in this matter. With the addition, that she can use this fact in persuance of any claim she may make against Tony Cliffton in her local county court. That way she can show that she has been reasonable in seeking independent mediation before entering into litigation.
Sean
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.