Terrible extortion $290 to end contact 2 weeks early

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › Terrible extortion $290 to end contact 2 weeks early

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1612523 16-Aug-2016 15:03

antoniosk:

Yeah.... 2D spent a lot of money building automated provisioning processes for this stuff, which is great as long as the humans operate the way the computer has been setup to expect.

Deviation for common sense can't be built as a rule, but I would have thought the human involved would have been able to think and just make it happen. Clearly they are not allowed to - which shows how much authority has been taken away from the frontline - and its ended up costing the brand a shedload of goodwill. I've been on 2D since launch and have nearly 11 SIMs with them... would be a shame if it were lost.

Good insights but I think sometimes there are cultural/individual competency issues involved. At where I am, complaints/issues handling goes something like this (1st level) front line -----> (2nd level) front line managers/team leaders -----> (3rd level) HO complaints team/relevant GM (or their people) -----> risk/legal (for when people are alleging serious misconduct by us and/or taking things to the industry disputes resolution regime or to court). A while back people at the 3rd and 4th level did a deep dive/analysis and we found that far too many complaints that should have been solved with a bit of common sense at the 1st and 2nd level had to be escalated to the 3rd and 4th levels. Without turning this into a giant bore, our ultimate conclusion was that too often it was the same "few" (few in percentage and not absolute terms, given that we are a very large entity) people at 1st and 2nd level who just weren't doing what common sense and decency required.

Many times it was a failure to understand the discretion the company gave them to do right by the customer; other times it was downright laziness on the part of 1st or 2nd level. The most disturbing was when 2nd level people pressured 1st level people to not do the right thing because it was perceived by the former that such remedial action would make a branch look bad etc. We had to change some measurement/incentive structures to make it pain-free and excuse-free for people to do the right thing. And we also had to let a few people who just weren't ever going to be customer-focused go. And were the rest of us glad to see their backs.

As for your pizza incident, the mind boggles at the branch wanting to fight over something that would probably have cost $2 to remake. People like that should just be fired.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1612524 16-Aug-2016 15:04

antoniosk:

I had a similar experience just recently with a NZ pizza chain. I don't really care for the brand but my youngest does.... the pizza was set with a tomato base after we said 'none'. But somewhere along the way the process broke. Instead of allowing common sense to apply to an item worth $5, the branch became bloody minded and refused to replace. Became nasty on confrontation, at which point common sense went out the window.

I was pretty annoyed and got in touch with the brand... GM NZ and I had an amicable convo, it's ended up costing that brand nearly 5 large pizzas and the exec time to fix. All for the sake of a fiver and not letting common sense reign.

I have also had similar experiences (not confined to pizza) and they end up the same: pointless bloody-mindedness followed by resolution higher up. I never understand why they let it get this far. I can only think it must be some kind of ego thing. I have also had very good experiences as described by freitasm. Not all businesses are run by idiots.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#1612530 16-Aug-2016 15:19

antoniosk:

I've been on 2D since launch and have nearly 11 SIMs with them... would be a shame if it were lost.

Completely O/T, but how do you have nearly 11 SIMs? Is it 10 SIMs? or do you have a half a SIM in half an iPhone? /pedant

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1612538 16-Aug-2016 15:40

BlueShift:

antoniosk:

I've been on 2D since launch and have nearly 11 SIMs with them... would be a shame if it were lost.

Completely O/T, but how do you have nearly 11 SIMs? Is it 10 SIMs? or do you have a half a SIM in half an iPhone? /pedant

I'm old school mobile, and remember the original credit card sized SIM's. Bellsouth never introduced them in NZ thankfully. Now I'm down to the tiny sim's for iphones and nexus, they just don't feel real :-P

________

Antoniosk

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1612541 16-Aug-2016 16:01

I can see the issue from 2 Degrees point of view. They have systems in place and their CSR's are required to follow the system, that is fine and reasonable, however there needs to discretion at appropriate levels of delegated authority. Systems can be both robust and flexible , companies like 2 Degrees are not statutory entities that must comply with acts of Parliament ( except where laws apply to govern the industry), therefore flexibility must be available as in this example to allow delegated authority to waive and make decisions outside the norm. Staff at all levels must know that the discretion exists and who has the delegated authority to do so, they should also advise the customer and keep the customer updated.

Customer service is never or seldom black and white and the way a company handles a separation can influence win back in the future. In this case 2D have made a decision for us that is good and certainly enhances the possibility of win back.

D.W

725 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1612582 16-Aug-2016 16:53

Many times it was a failure to understand the discretion the company gave them to do right by the customer; other times it was downright laziness on the part of 1st or 2nd level. The most disturbing was when 2nd level people pressured 1st level people to not do the right thing because it was perceived by the former that such remedial action would make a branch look bad etc. We had to change some measurement/incentive structures to make it pain-free and excuse-free for people to do the right thing. And we also had to let a few people who just weren't ever going to be customer-focused go. And were the rest of us glad to see their backs.

I witnessed a great example of this a few years back at Wendys.

My partner was buying a chocolate shake of some sort. They had a particular shake advertised which cost $4.00 (or something along those lines), which had chocolate fudge and flake sprinkled on it.

Their standard menu pricing had a plain shake for $3.50, and chocolate fudge was $1 extra (again these prices are guesstimates).

She asked for the particular shake that was advertised, but without the flake sprinkled on top. They argued that this would no longer be the advertised shake, and that they'd have to charge $4.50 instead of $4.00.

The employee got their manager involved, who continued to demand that her shake have flake sprinkled on it. She then suggested that they could perhaps "just sprinkle a tiny amount of flake on top". My partner declined based on the absurdity of the situation.

Eventually the manager gave up and flung her hands in the air as if my partner was the mad one and gave her what she asked for.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1612584 16-Aug-2016 17:00

D.W:

Many times it was a failure to understand the discretion the company gave them to do right by the customer; other times it was downright laziness on the part of 1st or 2nd level. The most disturbing was when 2nd level people pressured 1st level people to not do the right thing because it was perceived by the former that such remedial action would make a branch look bad etc. We had to change some measurement/incentive structures to make it pain-free and excuse-free for people to do the right thing. And we also had to let a few people who just weren't ever going to be customer-focused go. And were the rest of us glad to see their backs.

I witnessed a great example of this a few years back at Wendys.

My partner was buying a chocolate shake of some sort. They had a particular shake advertised which cost $4.00 (or something along those lines), which had chocolate fudge and flake sprinkled on it.

Their standard menu pricing had a plain shake for $3.50, and chocolate fudge was $1 extra (again these prices are guesstimates).

She asked for the particular shake that was advertised, but without the flake sprinkled on top. They argued that this would no longer be the advertised shake, and that they'd have to charge $4.50 instead of $4.00.

The employee got their manager involved, who continued to demand that her shake have flake sprinkled on it. She then suggested that they could perhaps "just sprinkle a tiny amount of flake on top". My partner declined based on the absurdity of the situation.

Eventually the manager gave up and flung her hands in the air as if my partner was the mad one and gave her what she asked for.

I would just walk away and not buy from them. Customer service is the number one thing. The customer may not always be right, but anything customer related needs discretion with give and take. If systems don't allow this, then the systems are broken, and it becomes a problem for the companies senior management / CEO.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

SteveON

1916 posts

Uber Geek

#1612604 16-Aug-2016 17:26

So much drama over a small issue. You signed a contract, expect the contract to be completed. I find it silly the OP can't follow the rules they agreed to.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1612616 16-Aug-2016 17:50

The mind boggles at the inability of people to actually read and then analyse the issues at hand before commenting.....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1612668 16-Aug-2016 19:27

SteveON:

So much drama over a small issue. You signed a contract, expect the contract to be completed. I find it silly the OP can't follow the rules they agreed to.

My only response is please read or re-read the facts of the thread your error will become apparent.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1612831 16-Aug-2016 21:36

There's a small segment of users here (and unfortunately this is a common pattern across geek forums) who appear to pride themselves on having reading comprehension levels of your average, impatient child. Even worse is when such people inevitably attribute derogatory motives and behaviour to people with legitimate concerns about a company (for reference see someone's post about MikeB4/others creating "so much drama"), often despite other, independent users going to considerable effort to help people understand the issues.

People, you can have your opinions but not your facts: if you can't bring yourself to say something nice, at least don't resort to unwarranted insults.

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek

#1613206 17-Aug-2016 13:08

If this was a thread about Wilson's Parking for someone who had overstayed their visit by 5 minutes and got an unenforceable "breach notice" of $60 people would be raging, even though "you agreed to the terms and conditions when you entered the carpark, it's as simple as that - don't like it, don't park there". These things go both ways.

dolsen

1476 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1613217 17-Aug-2016 13:19

portunus:

If this was a thread about Wilson's Parking for someone who had overstayed their visit by 5 minutes and got an unenforceable "breach notice" of $60 people would be raging, even though "you agreed to the terms and conditions when you entered the carpark, it's as simple as that - don't like it, don't park there". These things go both ways.

Actually, it's more like you pay for 240 minutes of parking, but, you want to leave after 235 minutes and are told that you have to pay a fee as you are not there for the full amount of time that you paid for.

Edit - for further clarification

You are not trying to pay for only 235 minutes, you are paying for the full 240 minutes as previously agreed, however, because you want to leave before you use all of the time you have paid for as per the contract, they decide that you have to pay more!

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek

#1613229 17-Aug-2016 13:43

I was more meaning from the point of view that the company can only cover their actual loss - which for 5 minutes parking would be probably less than $0.20, plus the cost of sending you the notice (maybe $5). Yet they try to charge you far in excess of their losses, same as the ETF for 2d.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1613817 18-Aug-2016 16:21

dejadeadnz:

There's a small segment of users here (and unfortunately this is a common pattern across geek forums) who appear to pride themselves on having reading comprehension levels of your average, impatient child. Even worse is when such people inevitably attribute derogatory motives and behaviour to people with legitimate concerns about a company (for reference see someone's post about MikeB4/others creating "so much drama"), often despite other, independent users going to considerable effort to help people understand the issues.

People, you can have your opinions but not your facts: if you can't bring yourself to say something nice, at least don't resort to unwarranted insults.

I've noticed an occasional weird hostility on Geekzone towards posters who have problems with unfair trading practices from businesses, together with a generally poor understanding of consumer protection and contract law. Whenever someone has a complaint there's a bit of a tendency to side with the business. I've sometimes wondered if there is a higher than normal proportion of small business owners here.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7