Broadband 'loyalty penalty' super complaint received by UK Govt

[HEXUS]

Citizens Advice complaint to be considered by the CMA.

Read more.

[flearider]

was with ee for a number of yrs on bb it was not till I was leaving they offered to reduce the price .there bb is great but I had to sign another 18mth contract I declined ..
at the end of this one i'll move again .. if they can discount it for a yr or 18mths why not keep the customer and make money by keeping it low ..

[Tabbykatze]

I'm fed up of wasting my time arguing the buck with my isp and phone provider about my contract. Everytime my three contract comes round for renewal i have to argue with them about deals.

"sorry sir, although you've been a loyal on time payment customer for a sum total of nearly 25 years cumulatively across your contracts, but you can't have that deal because that's for your friends and family"

Err, what?

I did have one dipstick once say to me when i challenged him that i can get better from a competitor but i want to stay with three, he actually said (notnparaphrased, actually what was said) "our opinion in Three is if you can get a better deal elsewhere, we want our customers to be happy and you should take that offer".

I asked him to confirm, on a recorded phone call, that he effectively told me my loyalty means nothing and i should go somewhere else. He said i shouldn't twist his words but i reminded him it was a recorded call both on threes and my side which he got a little upset about. Spoke to cancellations and they offered an S8 plus 30GB plan for my wifes contract for 25% off which was 15% better than what i was asking for. That idiot is not representative of my service with three, he was the by and far biggest exception.

I shouldn't have had to do that, why is my loyalty worth less than new business? I get increasing yearly revenue but what about the existing customers who make your bottom line?

I've had similar with Virgin but amusingly right at contract renewal my service gets terrible and can argue great deals with that leverage!

[peterb]

Sim only - and buy the phone on some other finance method.

Then problem doesn’t arise.

[Tabbykatze]

Sim only - and buy the phone on some other finance method.

Then problem doesn’t arise.

That's skirting the problem, not fixing the problem. And from what I've been doing I've been able to get the contract i want and the discount makes it so that the monthly cost subtracting service makes it so my phone cost is equivalent to buying new via an alternative method.

Why bother with a financing option when i can be comfortable with a monthly opex...

[maxp779]

I'm fed up of wasting my time arguing the buck with my isp and phone provider about my contract. Everytime my three contract comes round for renewal i have to argue with them about deals.

"sorry sir, although you've been a loyal on time payment customer for a sum total of nearly 25 years cumulatively across your contracts, but you can't have that deal because that's for your friends and family"

Err, what?

I did have one dipstick once say to me when i challenged him that i can get better from a competitor but i want to stay with three, he actually said (notnparaphrased, actually what was said) "our opinion in Three is if you can get a better deal elsewhere, we want our customers to be happy and you should take that offer".

I asked him to confirm, on a recorded phone call, that he effectively told me my loyalty means nothing and i should go somewhere else. He said i shouldn't twist his words but i reminded him it was a recorded call both on threes and my side which he got a little upset about. Spoke to cancellations and they offered an S8 plus 30GB plan for my wifes contract for 25% off which was 15% better than what i was asking for. That idiot is not representative of my service with three, he was the by and far biggest exception.

I shouldn't have had to do that, why is my loyalty worth less than new business? I get increasing yearly revenue but what about the existing customers who make your bottom line?

I've had similar with Virgin but amusingly right at contract renewal my service gets terrible and can argue great deals with that leverage!

Congrats man. You gave some poor "Dipstick" a hard time for doing what management almost certainly told him to do. He knows the call is recorded. If he could give you want you want to get you off the line believe me he almost certainly would have.

With many companies only the retentions department can give you anything. Core customer service can't do squat except help with service issues or transfer you. I call Virgin Media yearly and threaten to cancel and I get what I want. Retentions are allowed to lower my bill. They're allowed to send me a new router to replace the old one. Core customer service are not allowed to do this in many companies so its no use giving them a hard time over it.

[peterb]

That's skirting the problem, not fixing the problem. And from what I've been doing I've been able to get the contract i want and the discount makes it so that the monthly cost subtracting service makes it so my phone cost is equivalent to buying new via an alternative method.

Why bother with a financing option when i can be comfortable with a monthly opex...

True!

Of course the other side it that consumers should be responsible for looking after their own contracts. At the end of the initial contract they can move to Sim only keeping the handset.

Is this really an issue requiring legislation?

[Tabbykatze]

Congrats man. You gave some poor "Dipstick" a hard time for doing what management almost certainly told him to do. He knows the call is recorded. If he could give you want you want to get you off the line believe me he almost certainly would have.

With many companies only the retentions department can give you anything. Core customer service can't do squat except help with service issues or transfer you. I call Virgin Media yearly and threaten to cancel and I get what I want. Retentions are allowed to lower my bill. They're allowed to send me a new router to replace the old one. Core customer service are not allowed to do this in many companies so its no use giving them a hard time over it.

See, now there's the rub, he was not instructed to say that as i had a follow up from the complaints department regarding the matter.

What i have no patience for are Customer Service entities of which the persons themselves only want to follow the bare minimum of their hymn sheet. That team does have the power because i have negotiated with the first level team before and got the deals i wanted.

It's not a victory what happened there, I'm happy i got what i wanted but am unhappy it had to go that far. Now how can a system change internally if we follow exactly how it's meant to be externally as customers.

If a customer service rep is getting a hard time and is unable to continue providing service then their procedure is to send it to the right team or higher. He simply told me to piss off or pay higher prices.

I appreciate what you're saying but in that instance, you are wrong.

[aidanjt]

Is this really an issue requiring legislation?

Yes, it's predatory nonsense. Loyal customers shouldn't have to beat discounts out of their service provider and get roped into another 1-2 years of service. It mightn't be so bad if it was just one or two doing it, customers would get sick of their nonsense and abandon them. But they're practically all at it.

[peterb]

Yes, it's predatory nonsense. Loyal customers shouldn't have to beat discounts out of their service provider and get roped into another 1-2 years of service. It mightn't be so bad if it was just one or two doing it, customers would get sick of their nonsense and abandon them. But they're practically all at it.

Or it’s customers not taking matters into their own hands. If at the end of the minimum contract period a customer said that they were moving to a new provider, then the original service provider would soon start offering discounts. It’s just customer apathy or laziness that causes this. Customers owe their service providers no more loyalty that the service providers owe their customers. It’s a business transaction. No more - no less.

[aidanjt]

Or it’s customers not taking matters into their own hands. If at the end of the minimum contract period a customer said that they were moving to a new provider, then the original service provider would soon start offering discounts. It’s just customer apathy or laziness that causes this. Customers owe their service providers no more loyalty that the service providers owe their customers. It’s a business transaction. No more - no less.

OK then, let's just shred all consumer protection and fraud laws. If they're just too lazy to not put literally every transaction under a microscope, and they deserve to be ripped off for not doing so, why bother with any of it?

[Saracen]

Or it’s customers not taking matters into their own hands. If at the end of the minimum contract period a customer said that they were moving to a new provider, then the original service provider would soon start offering discounts. It’s just customer apathy or laziness that causes this. Customers owe their service providers no more loyalty that the service providers owe their customers. It’s a business transaction. No more - no less.

Exactly. so in a way, consumers (as a group) get exactly what they deserve. If ALL consumers reacted to being taken for granted by moving, companies wouldn't take them for granted.

But, as a group, one section watches their contracts and renegotiates or leaves, so they can't complain. The other group don't bother and they can't complain either, since all they need to do to get a better deal is get off their fat chuffs and work at it a bit.

Companies don't give their best discounts to everybody because they know full well that customer inertia means they do not need to.

You're precisely right about the amount of "loyalty" owed in both directions - none whatsoever.

[peterb]

OK then, let's just shred all consumer protection and fraud laws. If they're just too lazy to not put literally every transaction under a microscope, and they deserve to be ripped off for not doing so, why bother with any of it?

Because there are areas that a consumer might not reasonably be expected to take appropriate steps to protect the themselves. I don’t have the skills or equipment to determine if the loaf of bread I buy has been adulterated with chalk, for example.

But most smartphone operating systems come with a calendar application, so here is peterb’s guide to mobile phone contracts.

Buy broadband (or phone - same principle applies) and ask how long the contract is (not too difficult)

Play with shiny broadband (or phone) and put a date in the calendar two months before date end with note “ contract ends in two months - start looking around st the current offers” (fairly easy?)

Put another entry in the calendar one month before contract end with note “ring service provider to negotiate contract and discuss option” (also easy)

Act on reminders when they occur to ensure you are on the best deal at the time.

How difficult is that?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

OK then, let's just shred all consumer protection and fraud laws. If they're just too lazy to not put literally every transaction under a microscope, and they deserve to be ripped off for not doing so, why bother with any of it?

Because this is the internet and people are more worried about the rights of companies than consumer rights. It does not take into consideration the technical knowledge of people or even situations were people in certain more vulnerable demographics get targeted more than others especially after having to step in to help people myself.

[kalniel]

Loyalty isn't really the right word - many people don't change because they can't or they are too frighted too, suggesting there is scope in the legislation for making the process more easily understood or protected.

Eg tennants could do with a lot better protection in terms of getting control of utilities suppliers and not being tied to minimum terms/penalties for moving.

[spacein_vader]

Loyalty isn't really the right word - many people don't change because they can't or they are too frighted too, suggesting there is scope in the legislation for making the process more easily understood or protected.

Eg tennants could do with a lot better protection in terms of getting control of utilities suppliers and not being tied to minimum terms/penalties for moving.

It's clear in English & Welsh law (no idea about Scotland,) that the tennant has the right to control supplies as long as the landlord doesn't live with them (e.g. they're not a lodger,) and they pay the utilities themselves (so they aren't included in the rent.)

Furthermore if a tennant wants to change the meter for a smart one the landlord cannot stop them.