Bolt Ons -Underhanded but not illegal practice?

[mrsands]

I just want to flag up to everyone something that I feel is a Delibratley Underhanded practice that shreeks of a Lack of Intergity by my MPP.

 

I joined my MPP in 05. Soon after I joined I found that I needed a Bolt On of an extra 100 texts so got this added on . Anyway I have stayed with the same MPP ever since 05 and always called at Renewal Time to discuss my usage and negotiate myself a better deal. I have always asked what my av mins and texts pm usage was and then asked what they could offer me based on that info.

At no point during these negotiations have I ever thought to discuss the Bolt On that I had added in 2005 as I thought that at the point of discussing my needs when negotiating my contract each year that this was automatically taken into account.

 

Anyway I have just found out ( by accident) that for the past 4 yrs I have been paying for a Bolt On that I VERY CLEARLY didnt need!

 

Now you may ask why I didnt notice it on my bills - Well to be honest it was naivety on my part mainly but in my opinion also not made clear on my paper bill. It said " Your Monthly Extras" and I just though this was because I'd agreed something at each renewal that wasn't a "standard" contract - ie because I had said I needed 300 mins and 200 texts.( and maybe they only had standard tariffs that offer 300mins 100 texts etc)

At no point did I realise that it was in addition to the amount of texts/calls I had clearly stated I needed to have in my contract.

 

Anyway on flagging this up to my MPP I was told that they had no "Legal Obligation" after a Bolt On had been added to an account to discuss that Bolt On with the customer at the Contract Renewal Point unless the customer requested to discuss it.The Bolt On will stay on the account UNTIL the customer cancels it ( even if you negotiate a new contract with the same MPP)

 

I take accountabilty for my naivity and gullibility.However in my opinion the practice stinks of underhanded practice and a "We wont talk about it and hopefully you will forget/not realise you are paying for it" approach by the MPP

 

So to EVERYONE who has renewed a contract with the same MPP please do give them a call and ask if you have any bolt ons....it might just save you some £££s.....Im sure that if my MPP has this practice then many others will too!!

[mrsands]

Having done a bit more research over the past hour or so I looked at my MPP's Code of Conduct and came across a couple of sentences that hit a cord with me so I decided to give them another call in order to highlight this to them.

 

I spoke with "The Leader of the Resolutions Dept" who eventually admitted that ALL their "Advisors" are infact EXPECTED and TRAINED to discuss both Existing and Potential Bolt On's with ALL customers when a customer contacts them to negotiate/review their contract/service from the MPP.

Clearly this has NOT happened in my case on 4 occassions.

I would be interested to hear the readers of this threads opinion as to whether they think this is a training issue or a deliberate attempt by "Advisors" to not discuss the subject if it is not to the "Advisors" advantage.

[buzby]

It may be company policy to contact a customer to ensure the bolt-on is as required, but there;s no ;legal obligation' required whatsoever. After 4 years, you will see your trusting nature for what it is. Foolish.

 

They may as a goodwill gesture offer some form of discount or repayment, but I seriously doubt you could force them to if the chose to ignore your claim. Hopefully you've now cancelled it? And who is MPP, I've never heard of them.

[mrsands]

It may be company policy to contact a customer to ensure the bolt-on is as required, but there;s no ;legal obligation' required whatsoever. After 4 years, you will see your trusting nature for what it is. Foolish.

 

They may as a goodwill gesture offer some form of discount or repayment, but I seriously doubt you could force them to if the chose to ignore your claim. Hopefully you've now cancelled it? And who is MPP, I've never heard of them.

 

Hi Buzby - So sorry I abreviated Mobile Phone Provider( meaning my Mobile Phone AirTime Service Provider) to MPP .

 

You are correct there is no "Legal Obligation" (I thought I'd made that clear in my 1st post....maybe not..oops:oops:) I also agree with you, I was foolish and trusting ( I prefered to use the term naive in my post -).

 

I did however post this thread not in order to moan about my MPP but to bring my experiece in to the public domain in order that others (niave,foolish, trusting, gullible or not) might learn something from my mistake.

 

I take accountability for my situation (which I said in my first post) however the fact remains that the MPP admitted that their Advisors are expected and are trained to discuss existing/potential bolt ons with customers at the point at which a customer calls to review/renegotiate/discuss their contract whether the customer brings it up or not. This CLEARLY did not happen in my case, on not just 1 but 4 occassions.

 

Buzby,I really appreciate you expressing your opinion on this thread and would also love to hear your opinion to the question I also asked at the end of my second post which was - "I would be interested to hear the readers of this threads opinion as to whether they think this is a training issue or a deliberate attempt by "Advisors" to not discuss the subject if it is not to the "Advisors" advantage.?" So whats your thoughts?

 

Oh and BTW yep I did cancel the Bolt On

Thanks

[buzby]

I sat in on 'training' centre for call centre staff. (This was a sun-contractor to a network - so could be better or worse than the 'real thing'). It consisted of 7 hours of blackboard basics, 3 hours of simulated calls, 4 hours with a trainer 'listening in'. On Day 3 - they were on their own.

 

Clearly, the longer a person is in their post, they get a feeling for the client and what the common problems are and how to resolve them. From what you describe, all I see is incompetence, and as you'll appreciate as this in itself ins;t premeditated, the company can look on with horror, say that's not the standard they expect and then offer apologies the customer and provide 'retraining' - which is probably an euphemism for something but I never found out.

 

Tere are many occasions I knew more about the subject than the person I was dealing with, and there is little I can do but let them tree and branch down my problem until they arrive at the 'solution' they've been told to provide.

 

Whilst I like conspiracy theories as much as the next person, good old incompetence is usually nearer the mark! :)

[mrsands]

Hiya Buzby,

Thought I'd get a quick post in before work this morning!!

 

I take your point and accept the possibility that there may be some incompetence involved in this. ( notice I say possibility there )

 

If that is in fact the truth of the matter then this "Existing Bolt On" which the company admitted that they "Expect and Train their Advisors to discuss whenever a customer calls to review their service" was handled by 4 incompetent and possibly poorly trained Advisors 4 years on the trot.

 

However don't you find it odd that the advisor I spoke to in Jan in order to review my account remembered to ask me if I WANTED any Bolt Ons ADDING to my account (can't remember exactly what she suggested but I remember saying no thanks it's not something I would use...I'm sure I could request to listen to the call though as I understand that recordings are kept for at least 12 months) but through what you may consider, incompetence and possibly poor training, DIDN'T remember to discuss the Existing Bolt On on my account?

 

I would presme that Advisors have KPI's/Performance Targets to hit- Is it possible that there are certain KPI's that they are measured against and Targets expected to achieve that may have a negative effect on the advise the customer is given by the Advisors?

 

I'd really like to hear your thoughts as well as others thoughts on these questions I've raised.

[buzby]

Since all (but the most experienced) CS staff are reading from a pre-approved script, I don't believe you can read anything additional into the terminology that there was the potential to mislead. (By saying 'would you like/want to add bolt-ons to your account), as this (cleverly?) covers customer situations where there are none existing, AND when there are some already in place.

 

Telephone commerce is rife with misunderstandings - but then reviewing the complaints thrown up here on CAG, it doesn't appear to be the sole cause of disputes as we have situations in face-to-face, internet, phone opt-ins, opt-outs so a rule of thumb could be if there is a potential for something to go wrong (if it is something that could be usefully described as being more than a simple transaction) then it probably will. Therefore the consumer needs to keep their wits about them and deal with this challenge accordingly.

 

I'm not saying consumers are thick, far from it - but for a call such as you describe, you are being with with information that will be legally binding and at a speed that is twice that of a classroom - and there, there is no requirement for 100% recall!

 

I never do 'deals' on the phone. I'll source info, read, digest and try to talk myself out of it if it was an impulse infatuation. I can usually succeed!