- This topic has 94 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
johnmac11 wrote:Hi Guys,
Bored this morning so I thought I would have a look at 4 and 5. Some of the points highlighted in blue below are from a previous edit that I think Sean did. If we can get a consensus on sections 4 and 5 I will type up a final draft for all to see so we can get this in the bag.
John
my views will be posted in red
sean
Part 4
Service calls
1. An appliance must be reasonably accessible to the engineer for repair, if it is not and there is any danger to the homeowner or the homeowner’s property the customer is to be advised and a mutual decision taken on how to proceed2. All Members should adhere to current Health & Safety requirements as stipulated in law.
3. A best attempt is made to rectify the customer’s appliance should be made on the first visit negating the need for a further service call (in conjunction with 4.)
What does in conjunction with 4 relate to?
I’m sure that it means, as long as it complys with rule 4 i.e. we have all at some stage or other affected tempory repairs to keep an appliance going till we return with a spare.
4. Always leave the customer’s appliance is a safe condition with no danger to the customer. If this requires the disconnection of the appliance then the engineer undertakes that responsibility of disconnection and documents this clearly as well as appraising the customer
Even under stricter corgi regulations no engineer has the automatic right to disconnect an appliance even if it is found to be I.D. ( Immediately dangerous) the course of action is to inform the responsible person and get permission to disconnect the appliance. If this is not forth coming you are then required to inform Transco/H.S.E. immediately. Therefore we should follow a similar course of action
I agree we should state that we will advise the customer and seek permission to disconnect the appliance and document same
5. After repairs the appliance is checked for function (specification test) and that it is in a safe condition for the customer to use
Should this not say “After repairs the engineer should carry out safety and function checks on all appliances”
same thing really
6. The appliance will be replaced back into situ as was or the customer fully appraised of the reason/s that this is not possible
7. Any refuse tidied up for disposal in accordance with legislation
This line may give customers the wrong impression that it is the service engineers duty to dispose of what may be classed as being hazardous waste and that we have a legal duty to do so
Should say “Any used parts and packaging will be left for inspection and disposal by the customer”I agree
Part 5
Spare parts
1. All spares will be guaranteed for 12 months from date of purchase
Should say “all parts and labour”2. Spares will be ordered as soon as possible after a service visit, normally within 48 hours is acceptable
Should say “If spares need to be ordered etc”
3. Any information of delays with a spares order notified to the repairer will be relayed to the customer
Should say “Any information of delays with a spares order notified to the repairer will be relayed to the customer as soon as possible”
4. Customers will not be charged for spares that they did not identify and specifically request.
I think that the word ‘identify’ should be replaced with the word ‘authorise’ as most customers could not be expected to identify any spare
I agree
5. Customers will not be charged for missing or damaged spares
does this line need to be included?
I agree as it may give the impression that this is a common practice
6. Customer’s may be charged a handling charge of no more than 40{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of total for cancelled orders or returned goods (unused) and in a saleable condition where the supplier/manufacturer will accept returns
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
johnmac11 wrote:Part 4
Service calls
1. An appliance must be reasonably accessible to the engineer for repair, if it is not and there is any danger to the homeowner or the homeowner’s property the customer is to be advised and a mutual decision taken on how to proceed2. All Members should adhere to current Health & Safety requirements as stipulated in law.
3. A best attempt is made to rectify the customer’s appliance should be made on the first visit negating the need for a further service call (in conjunction with 4.)
What does in conjunction with 4 relate to?
I’m sure that it means, as long as it complys with rule 4 i.e. we have all at some stage or other affected tempory repairs to keep an appliance going till we return with a spare.
Yes Sean, that’s exactly what it meant. Basically it allows the flexability of affecting a temporary repair but puts the onus upon safety, i.e. if it’s not safe then it can’t be done. For example, sticking a pen in to operate a power switch could not be considered safe. Common sense applies.
johnmac11 wrote:4. Always leave the customer’s appliance is a safe condition with no danger to the customer. If this requires the disconnection of the appliance then the engineer undertakes that responsibility of disconnection and documents this clearly as well as appraising the customer
Even under stricter corgi regulations no engineer has the automatic right to disconnect an appliance even if it is found to be I.D. ( Immediately dangerous) the course of action is to inform the responsible person and get permission to disconnect the appliance. If this is not forth coming you are then required to inform Transco/H.S.E. immediately. Therefore we should follow a similar course of action
I agree we should state that we will advise the customer and seek permission to disconnect the appliance and document same
I do not see this as a problem if the repairer acts in a responsible manner.
All that needs to be done is that you unplug the appliance or , in some way, render it unuseable and NOTE IT on the job sheet, work sheet or computer record at the time and inform the customer. If the customer ignores that advice then that’s their problem in law.
Same thing but different, man drives into a garage and says his brakes aren’t working correctly. Mechanic looks at them and informs the guy that if they’re not seen to he will likely crash as they are very dangerous, but the garage cannot stop the customer from driving away, irrespective of the danger to himself and others.
johnmac11 wrote:5. After repairs the appliance is checked for function (specification test) and that it is in a safe condition for the customer to use
Should this not say “After repairs the engineer should carry out safety and function checks on all appliances”
same thing really
By changing it to that you then ensure that all the engineers will meter and megger the appliance, which they won’t regardless of what we say so you put them in a position where they will not comply on more occasions than they will, a la DASA. The wording there was very deliberate and open ended for a reason.
johnmac11 wrote:7. Any refuse tidied up for disposal in accordance with legislation
This line may give customers the wrong impression that it is the service engineers duty to dispose of what may be classed as being hazardous waste and that we have a legal duty to do so
Should say “Any used parts and packaging will be left for inspection and disposal by the customer”I agree
If we say it’s in line with legislation then we are not in conflict as we divert to a higher power, it’s basic negotiation skills deflecting the onus, reason and blame to a higher authority with which the customer must converse to gain an answer. Again, this was worded in this way very carefully and deliberately.
johnmac11 wrote:Part 5
Spare parts
1. All spares will be guaranteed for 12 months from date of purchase
Should say “all parts and labour”No as many repairers have no call to, nor want to, offer a 12 month labour warranty. Different from us doing contract work and again a failing in DASA’s charter which cost members as there is no legislation which states that a 12 month warranty has to be offered on the labour content.
johnmac11 wrote:2. Spares will be ordered as soon as possible after a service visit, normally within 48 hours is acceptable
Should say “If spares need to be ordered etc”
Agreed, that needs clarified.
johnmac11 wrote:3. Any information of delays with a spares order notified to the repairer will be relayed to the customer
Should say “Any information of delays with a spares order notified to the repairer will be relayed to the customer as soon as possible”
Agreed, clearer and more appropriate.
johnmac11 wrote:4. Customers will not be charged for spares that they did not identify and specifically request.
I think that the word ‘identify’ should be replaced with the word ‘authorise’ as most customers could not be expected to identify any spare
I agree
Agreed
johnmac11 wrote:5. Customers will not be charged for missing or damaged spares
does this line need to be included?
I agree as it may give the impression that this is a common practice
The reason that this is there is padding and safety really. Whilst it is a rare occurence it does mean that if you get a cowboy who fits, or says he fits, bits that are not required we can kick them off for it.
K.
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
johnmac11 wrote:5. After repairs the appliance is checked for function (specification test) and that it is in a safe condition for the customer to use
Should this not say “After repairs the engineer should carry out safety and function checks on all appliances”
same thing really
Kwatt wrote:By changing it to that you then ensure that all the engineers will meter and megger the appliance, which they won’t regardless of what we say so you put them in a position where they will not comply on more occasions than they will, a la DASA. The wording there was very deliberate and open ended for a reason.
I dont think it is the same Sean, By saying that the appliance is left in a safe condition could imply that it is screwed back into the housing correctly and that is what some engineers will think.
Ken, I dont see the problem in us insisting that safety testing is done on all appliances, we know it wont always be done but I think it needs to be there regardless. All we need is some idiot to leave an appliance live and say that tere was no requirement for him to do a safety test.
————————————————————————–
All spares will be guaranteed for 12 months from date of purchasejohnmac11 wrote:Should say “all parts and labour”
Kwatt wrote:No as many repairers have no call to, nor want to, offer a 12 month labour warranty. Different from us doing contract work and again a failing in DASA’s charter which cost members as there is no legislation which states that a 12 month warranty has to be offered on the labour content.
Point taken Ken, getting carried away with the fact that I have to give 12 months guarantee with all my repairs. But surely we have to give some kind of reasurance to the public that our members will give a minimum guarantee like for instance 3 months labour and 12 months parts.
John
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Yeah I know, it’s a tough one the safety one is.
In a way what we did there was to put the onus to ensure that the appliance was safe on the engineer and this is no different to the current requirements in law, only our version is somewhat diluted. In the end it comes down to how good the engineer is and, by wording it this way, it allowed for a broad scope of skills and test procedures.
A few years down the road, who knows, but for now I’d say it has to remain ambiguous to an extent until we actually adopt a safe practise that is reasonable and quick. I have meggers, they gather dust.
Point taken on the labour warranty but doing it either way allows some people to take the piss a bit if you think about it. I too have to offer a 12 month warranty on virtually every repair and I build that into my pricing structure. Most of the one-man shows out there probably don’t have the information to do that, or even realise that they have to do it.
Again, both these come down to education of the businesses in question, which you know we’re trying to address, but that will take some time. I think that the spirit in which the charter was written was great and that it is a very “real-world” workable charter to follow and maybe it may even raise some standards which was the intent. But we have to be realistic and give other time to catch up.
So, what I’d suggest is that you ask in the forums what they want to do and what warranty they offer, with a poll, so we can gauge that one a little better. Then we’re being open about it.
K.
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
We have to remember that although some of us are DASA members and therefore have had to agree to DASA’s terms and conditions. UKW members are not, and do not.
I take the point that we have to some times blurr the edges a little to get as many bod’s onboard as posible.
We have to remember that dasa followed the amdea code only to find that amdea dropped it and then dasa failed to spot it and just left their’s as is.
Sean
Quite and they also registered it with the OFT or whoever thereby locking themsleves into it if they didn’t want to give that up, a folly IMO. Try never to back yourself into a corner. 😉
K.
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Sorry chaps, long day fixing……. Not much I can add really – excellent job everybody.
No-one has touched on 5.1 – 12 mth g/t on all spares – I don’t guarantee Hotpoint group t/d stat kits under any circumstances, especially as the safety stat is designed to fail. I had some idiot students last year who got through 5 sets through incompetence.
Perhaps “with the exception of single use safety devices” on the end?
Cheers,
Chris.Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Penguin45 wrote:No-one has touched on 5.1 – 12 mth g/t on all spares – I don’t guarantee Hotpoint group t/d stat kits under any circumstances, especially as the safety stat is designed to fail. I had some idiot students last year who got through 5 sets through incompetence.Chris.
Look up a couple of posts
JohnRe: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Yersss – read it all again, and you’re all saying 12 month guarantee on spares, seemingly regardless of function. I can’t agree for the reasons outlined above.
Chris.
Actually the monotone flightless one has a bloody good point there. How do we change it then to allow for the “one-shot” or customer f**ked it items?
K.
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
I said at first that we should give 12 months across the board as I do now, then Ken pointed out that a lot of firms dont give this sort of guarantee so that is why I am running the poll to try and get a happy medium.
I also never took into account the problems you guys have with the Hotpoint stats, Servis modules etc and understand that will need to be taken in account.
I suppose a level that everyone could cope with is a 3 month parts and labour guarantee minimum across the board ( If anyone wants to give more thats up to them) with a provision for an opt out on certain dodgy parts as long as the customer was informed before job was completed and the omission of guarantee was noted on the invoice.
I was also surprised to see that 70{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of answers to poll give 12 months guarantee because on reflection the only people I thought that would give that sort of warranty are manufacturer service agents and DASA members?
JohnRe: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
I don’t have a general problem with 12 month g/ts – indeed modules from EMW I fit quite happily with 12 months g/t, despite Tony giving 6 months – it’s a reasonably balanced risk.
We don’t guarantee door catches (people break them), Hpt stat kits (people break them), blockages (had one last week – new pump motor, only 2 days to block the new one – bill followed) – the list could go on. We probably all have our own quirks as to what can be reasonably guaranteed.
This is the clarification to be made.
We need an addendum to the affect of user misuse and safety components actually fulfilling their function.
Perhaps “….. excepting customer misuse and components designed to fail in a safety situation” ?
Late and tired so better ideas please……
Chris.
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Amended draft part 3
When dealing with calls the member should adhere to the following points:
1. Contact the customer as soon as possible, when the call has been received via fax/email, generally within 1 working day.
2. If your contact attempt, is met by the customers own answering machine. Then leave a message advising of your call.
3. Offer a call (where geographically possible) within two working days (48 hours) or a timed (AM/PM or other by arrangement) per the customer’s requirements or by mutual agreement.
4. If for any reason the call cannot be made as scheduled the customer is updated at the earliest possible opportunity and an alternative given.
5. If contact by phone or email is not possible, then a postal system should be used after 3 attempted contacts over two working days.
Councilors please state either your agreement or any objections to this draftRe: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
johnmac11 wrote:
7. Any refuse tidied up for disposal in accordance with legislationThis line may give customers the wrong impression that it is the service engineers duty to dispose of what may be classed as being hazardous waste and that we have a legal duty to do so
Should say “Any used parts and packaging will be left for inspection and disposal by the customer”Del wrote
I agreeKen wrote
If we say it’s in line with legislation then we are not in conflict as we divert to a higher power, it’s basic negotiation skills deflecting the onus, reason and blame to a higher authority with which the customer must converse to gain an answer. Again, this was worded in this way very carefully and deliberately.
Sean Say’sI really feel that this is one point that admin should conceed to the A.C.
all of the work providers and manufacturers actually back us up on this one.
and hse can at any time add to their list of hazardous waste and it needs clearly stating that the customers have their own responsibilities.
their old parts are their responsibility. as is the pakaging that their replacement part came in.It should be simply stated that :-
“Any used parts and packaging will be left tidy for inspection and correct disposal by the customer, in line with current legislation”
Re: UKW CHARTER (amendments)
Part 4 Amended draft
Service calls
1. An appliance must be reasonably accessible to the engineer for repair, if it is not and there is any danger to the homeowner or the homeowner’s property the customer is to be advised and a mutual decision taken on how to proceed2. All Members should adhere to current Health & Safety requirements as stipulated in law.
3. A best attempt is made to rectify the customer’s appliance should be made on the first visit negating the need for a further service call (in conjunction with 4.)
4. Always leave the customer’s appliance is a safe condition with no danger to the customer. If this requires the disconnection of the appliance then the engineer undertakes that responsibility of disconnection and documents this clearly as well as appraising the customer
5. After repairs the appliance is checked for function (specification test) and that it is in a safe condition for the customer to use
6. The appliance will be replaced back into situ as was or the customer fully appraised of the reason/s that this is not possible
7. Any used parts and packaging will be left tidy for inspection and correct disposal by the customer, in line with current legislation
Councilors please state either your agreement or any objections to this draft
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.