Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: Beko
Chill out, not everyone reads all of the site all the time and it’s easy to miss stuff these days.
But as Dave says, all the Beko work so far as I know is routed through Service Force despite a little skirmish (rumoured) with GBDAR.
Unless anyone knows any different? 😉
K.
Re: “New” Coverplan
Rudolph_Hucker wrote:This is in tablets of stone & we have to put up with it, I’m the guy who released the info before the official date, prior to the posting the title of this little ruse had not even been given to anyone, it was a closely guarded secret.
Just a small point, but if life is all hunky dorey and there’s no problems with this idea where’s the requirement to keep it such a secret?
I’ll leave you to work that one out.
K.
Re: Advisory Council
You are absolutely spot John and why I see no need to change the nicknames. I only used mine as “kwatt” as I was always going to be pretty much high profile on here otherwise I’d have used “Lynchpin”, but there are a plethora of others I could have used. In short, there’s no need to change it.
In many ways I’m absolutely sick of hearing that tired old argument rolled out that people should use their own real names, there’s no call it’s easy enough to suss who’s who and most people hardly hide! What really gets my goat though is that most of the twats that complain about it are the very ones that DO hide, that is just so annoying. And we had an absolutely classic case of that from the last DASA meeting.
I don’t see you guys being exactly run off your feet either but it’s there, there is a method and a route to deal with any issues and it being seen to be there is far more important than the amount of work it does. And, in fact, the less it does the better it is quite honestly as, either way, you can spin it easily to your advantage in media terms.
K.
We provide any services at our behest as a free service, you can take it or leave it basically. However there’s no stipulation in law that we have to allow access to teh site, advertesments placed or to provide work for any member and, if they agree to the above via the charter then tough basically as they accepted the terms.
Anything like this is untested in law as, quite simply, its never been done before.
Martin, we’ll have to disclose the identity of the siting AC, there’s no alternative as it has to be open in that way. The decision proccess should be closed, on that I totally agree with Sean. However, I see no need to change the nicknames used as it would cause consusion and, in using them, people can easily see the calibre and integrity of the people sitting on the AC.
K.
Re: Advisory Council
Del wrote:The remit so far for the A.C. is as a self regulatory body to oversee a mutually agreed standard of service within and exclusively for the membership of UKW. (and that I am quite happy to do.)
That is my understanding of the basic function, yes.
Del wrote:a) Introduce the council members to the membership as a whole.
Yep, that’s not a problem.
Del wrote:b) Give a brief description of each and their companies, which by necessity, means that they have to forgo their annonimity to assume their positions on council.
Again not a problem at all.
Del wrote:c) Set up a public and closed forum for the A.C. for both the reporting and investigation of complaints.
No need, what I’ll do will be within the articles section there is no requirement I feel for a public forum on this as, if required, the General Public Forum can be used although I can’t see a need.
Del wrote:d) Include the charter as an introduction banner to the open forum
A link and the text of it can be placed in the General Forum tonight if we so wish, there’s no problem geting that message out at all.
Del wrote:c) Also include an introduction banner for the public that all complaints should in the first instance be reported to the agent that accepted the job to try and reach a mutually amicable resolution to their problem. ( i.e. not go rushing off to A.C. arbitration because the guy is half an hour late ect.)
Yes, a very important point I feel that we detail how the customer should handle a complaint as well in order to avoid silly things. It may even prove valuable to detail out some of the things that the AC won’t deal with or at what level they will.
Del wrote:e) It should also be pointed out to the public that any adudication made in their favour is only in addittion to their statutory rights under U.K. consumer law.
Indeed, also a good point that I think we discussed before.
Del wrote:f) That UKW is not financially liable for any loss as we are only a point of contact between customer and service provider not unlike a newspaper that advertises various services. ( or do we need to think of asking participating members to take out bond for any underwritting of successful complaints against our members who chose not to respond to instructions from th A.C.
For now I think we play it as a service over and above statutory rights although that’s an interesting idea that we’ll have to explore Sean.
Del wrote:Would you like me to go on or is that enough to chew on for now
Oh just fire in things as you think of them, that’s what we do and it works as you soon weed out the crap ideas from the good ones through discussion. It’s also why Kev’s an old cranky bugger! :rotfl:
K.
Re: Advisory Council
Oh okay then, I just see a future for this in many, many ways and I have only touched the surface of what can be done with it in time.
There are various sanctions that can be put in place…
Removal from Repairs@ is only the obvious one.
Removal from the Directories as well.
Ultimately removal from the website totally! 😯
And remember if these decisions are published then black marks will count.
K.
Re: Advisory Council
Okay, now we can get down to the nitty gritty. 😈
I intend having a page or area where the details of each instance where the AC has to be used is detailed and logged for posterity as well as full disclosure on the decisions and remedies as a result. That way people can see that it works. There is no need to give a “blow-by-blow” account of it, merely an overview.
There’s a couple of bits of the puzzle that we simply can’t tell you about right now due to commercial interests, but suffice to say that there may well be another level to this before the AC to weed out the crap and that we may be able to vet the repairers. We’re awaiting a green light on that so we have to keep it quiet for now.
The decisions reached by the AC are theirs, we have to comply as well with them in our respective repair businesses.
Where it is a member of the AC that the complaint is about one of us can step in or we can nominate someone, your call.
Seperate forum is easily done whenever you wish it done.
Innocent until proven otherwise, agreed, that is the way. But just as is the case in a legal framework you have to divorce yourself from sentiment and reach a decision based on facts.
The most basic of rules are already in place for e-jobs in the form of the charter, if they adhere to that then we should be okay and any complaints minimalised.
We have already had a bit of interest in this idea from outside UKW and, if we get it right, would we be interested in “hiring” out the idea on a commercial basis? Personally I see that as great praise for the idea, the integrity of UKW and the people involved, but that’s just me I guess.
K.
Re: “New” Coverplan
Fair enough Kevin, I missed the reference.
Point is though CDSL are just in there with all the rest nobody was having a dig at CDSL so why are they being defended? I know you do a lot of work for them but, as I said, I doubt that they had much to do with this inituative at all, if anything.
We all usede to work to the AMDEA Code Of Practise, I know the service levels off by heart as I had to for manufacturer service. Many members of AMDEA cannot meet those levels and have not been able to for some time so, what does AMDEA do… it changes the COP!!!
Now it’s so ambiguous it’s unreal, there’s now no guaranteed level of service essentially.
The rules were…
Call within 3 working days (all day call)
Repair within 28 days.
Now if they can’t meet that how on Earth are they going to meet this?
There’s only two ways that I can see, outsource some service as you mention but how many have any capacity to help and, who wants to on low volume multi-brand gear that you will probably have no stock for. Or you prioritise DSG customers.
Either way it’s hardly what I’d call ideal.
K.
Re: “New” Coverplan
Not quite Chris.
DSG sell a shedload (obviously) and can and do dictate certain terms to the people that sell product to them. Probably much like Comet/KESA as well I should think.
Information on what actually goes on is tough to come by other than veiled refrences to manufacturers having to pay for floor space, having to guarantee a certain number of products sold etc. and it seems to happen in brown as well as whitegoods. That mentality will obviously extend to after sales care as well.
Due to these conditions there are quite a few manufacturers that simply won’t sell through Currys or Comet as they know that they cannot afford it or that they cannot provide the logistics to back it up and meet the demands. There’s two schools of though there IMO, either that those manufacturers aren’t good enough or they’re smart enough to stay away, draw your own conclusions.
There are also two schools of thought on the effect that increasing demands are making upon the service industry as a whole. Either the demands improve the service levels and therefore the customer wins and gets a better service alround, or that because there has been no investment in service, that they have eaten further into the profitability of the service agent thereby setting the industry on a downward spiral. I tend to agree with the latter more than the former.
Where it’s manufacturer service (employed engineers) resources are usually found to counter the increases in service level demands, as they generally have a pot of cash to throw at the problem. For the agents however life is a little tougher, they don’t have cash to throw at it and they are unlikely to get much or any extra to provide an increase in the level of service. As we’ve discussed here many times, the rates we get haven’t (generally) even tracked with headline inflation rates let alone extra demands placed upon us.
So we’ve given the extra service levels generally until we cut out all the little nice things, like training new staff.
Now we have Hotpoint, GIAS, independents, BSH and BG etc. all chasing engineers and the indies just can’t offer enough to compete as they don’t have the cash to compete. We can’t train because we can’t afford it and, viola… engineer shortage!
Now we have an increased service level being asked for and, if Currys use that as a commercial advantage, Comet, CIH etc. will all follow looking for the same sort of service level to compete.
It’s not rocket science to see that it could cause a little bit of a problem.
K.
Re: “New” Coverplan
Who mentioed CDSL?
What does CDSL have to do with service levels foisted upon manufacturers agents without consultation?
Answer… nothing.
Kev, I (nor I believe anyone else) is “having a go” at CDSL at all in any way. What they are having a go at is DSG and a grand plan that is, essentially, forced upon the agents.
I am assured that CDSL are/will take a different tact which is commendable and welcome, but I would lay odds that the poor buggers doing manufacturer service will not recieve the same lattitude due to their network’s structures.
K.
Re: “New” Coverplan
And therein lies the very sentiment I was alluding to the other day when I did the “history” post.
Insofar as I can see all that DSG has ever done (really bar a few things that they have gotten right) is cost us bottom feeders money by making unrealistic demands upon service for entirely unrealistic rates. As independents we do not have the luxury of the manufacturers cash reserves to assist in accomodating such measures, we are merely expected to comply… at OUR cost.
Now, I’m not blaming DSG entirely here, the manufacturers that blithely agree to such things then foist it upon their agents are every bit as bad, if not worse, culprits in this. And, get this, when you talk to manufacturers service people, i.e. the guys that actually appoint agents and run service, it’s usually a decision that is entirely out of there hands. No, this comes from a suit in marketing that hasn’t the first clue about service other than when it causes him a problem by way of a complaint from an account. But upn the threat of losing a multi-million pound a year account they bend over every time, only we’re the ones when it’s a service issue that have to carry the can and offer up a pound of flesh.
It’s interesting to note that not one agent for even any of the majors that I’ve spoken to has been told anything about this, that tells a sad tale in itself.
But hey you never know, maybe they’ll phone Sooty and get him to wave his magic wand and… presto, there’ll be an abundance of engineers all of a sudden! 😆
K.
Hi Essex,
The part number you’re looking for is 92X6010 and it is in stock in France, I can’t give you a price right now as I’m not in the office but Dave should be able to give you both that and an ETA on Monday.
So he remembers you’d be best to mail him on spares@ukwhitegoods.co.uk 😉
K.
Manufacture or assemble? There’s a subtle difference. 😉
I though that they had changed most, if not all, of the tub group assembly over to the standard fare.
K.
