Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Anarchy in the UK

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Anarchy in the UK

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The ombudsman time period runs from date complaint was deadlocked, not date complaint was made. Why anyone would want to waste even more time and effort getting the ombudsman involved is something I find hard to work out though? Due process in this matter has nothing to do with any financial offers already made, but is related to vicarious liability held by all providers for the acts, omissions, and conduct of its members of staff. They have tried to suggest vicarious liability doesnt exist, and refused to answer questions related to this, but obviously if there were no liability there would have been no offer of £500. All corporations are primarily interested only in profit, and unless a legal action has no chance of success whatever, in the case of many small claims the cost of defending the action is likely to be more than satisfying the claim before any sort of court action. Rather than getting involved with the corporate room 101 service (ombudsman), its always better to mention legal action at the outset of any sort of complaint, and be prepared to make a small claim, should matters not be dealt with properly..............
  2. Thanks..................no way is anything going to ombudsman, which is a sort of corporate Room 101 perfect for getting rid of anything awkward. They have once more backtracked, but this time their previous offer was clearly outlined in the form of an email, and there seems to have been collusion between 2 entirely separate (supposedly) tentacles of the SSE octopus, which might not look that great if this ends up in court (which is certain if they dont provide what is required in my letter before action).
  3. Have been dealing with a complaint concerning SSE customer service staff on behalf of a friend of mine, for a period of about 13 months now. This involves both the distribution and supply parts of the company. Up to now distribution have agreed to an ex gratia payment of £500 in relation not to the original matter, but in recognition of how badly their customer service staff have dealt with the complaint. The way supply staff have dealt with the matter is comparable if not slightly worse than the distribution side. However rather than offering any sort of compensatory payment, supply have simply deadlocked the matter without even a cursory investigation of whats gone on. Bearing in mind neither the friend who I am acting for, or myself has ever had an SSE account related to the business premises the original problems related to, nor have I provided SSE with any formal notification of acting on behalf of my friend, are SSE supply entitled to deadlock a complaint which they have effectively ignored?
  4. Yes previously they did reduce what I had been charged renewal price to online price, but it took a great deal of effort to achieve that. I would guess complaints department very busy indeed, but get the feeling that unless you want to pay quite a bit more money, all the insurance providers are much the same?
  5. Last year I renewed cover with the same company online for £125 less than the quoted renewal cost. Cover exactly the same, and my circumstances and vehicle both the same, and no claims. Clearly the offer of a £5 gift voucher is designed to encourage customers to renew direct, which is going to cost them more money. Maybe thats not actual fraud, but its certainly not particularly honest............. Not sure many people are going to be comfortable with paying more money for exactly the same product, when there is no real reason for differences between the 2 prices, and nothing to justify renewing direct costing quite a bit more?
  6. My motor insurance due for renewal next month, and today received a spam email (BISL) encouraging me to renew direct, using the highly attractive offer of a £5 Greggs gift voucher! I phoned them and asked why I should take up their kind offer bearing in mind the fact that renewing direct might well cost over £100 more than buying exactly the same cover online. Other than some pointless waffle obviously from a well practised script, no real answer to my question. Thing is here though is they are offering an incentive to customers to renew direct, which is going to cost them more money, and seems to me that this is getting very close to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception? Wonder if anyone has any views on this [problem] emailing, which I guess is likely to become more and more common as time goes on?
×
×
  • Create New...