Friday, 17 April 2015

It is rare to sack a customer

But when someone replies to the automated ticket response with this, I think we have to.
Think yoursleves lucky we're hundreds of miles apart.  

After the hours of aggravation you've just caused me nothing would give me greater pleasure than to pop round to your offices and sort you out, man to useless parasite.  

Some of us create and produce.  Others suck our blood like leeches.  Well go suck yourselves.  

Trust me - I'm a journalist - and your name will be sh*t henceforth.
Totally unjustified, obviously - looks like he may have a line issue, but looking at it, it is probably caused by an unfiltered extension connected to a sky box or similar. Something we'd be happy to help him with if he actually reported a fault. I cannot have customers threatening to "sort you out" or calling my staff "parasites". It is simply not acceptable, whatever issue they have with their line.

Update: Thank you Len for this classic comment on your email to us:-

Ps I'm not a journalist and your name will be praised henceforth :))

24 comments:

  1. "Trust me - I'm a journalist" sounds like an unbeatable entry in a "Phrases Least Likely to Prove Persuasive" competition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is rarely any value in being nasty or threatening in emails to one's ISP. I suspect his problems with his line pale into insignificance compared to the hell I've endured for over year with my line (which is finally on the mend), but I know it's nothing personal and A&A staff really would love to fix it.

    Did this chap try the test socket? We'll probably never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has not even reported a fault or called. Just emailed accounts asking for a MAC, and being rude. I have given him a MAC and 30 days notice.

      Delete
    2. Ah, sounds very much like I've met his kind before - people so insecure that they need to justify everything they do. In my experience, they start out with full-on aggression because they've found that's the best way to receive comfort and attention and when the company they're being aggressive with kowtows to them, they feel validated. I guess it's the modern-day equivalent of the thug in the pub picking a fight for no good reason other than to make themselves feel good. Poor souls.

      Delete
    3. I suspect this is an extreme case of the situation I occasionally get where a customer contacts me with a question along the lines of "why haven't you fixed our yet, it's been having problems for weeks".

      While obviously monitoring can allow for a proactive response in some cases as it can spot some issues, some things are harder / impractical to monitor in an automated way, so you need the customer to let you know in order to fix it. It's particularly frustrating when the fix is something trivial which can be done in minutes, as you then know if the customer had got in touch when they first had the issue they could have saved themselves lots of hassle...

      Delete
    4. Indeed, though this case seems to be a matter of "hours" not "weeks". Even do, very silly.

      Delete
  3. Frankly I'd report him to the police for that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Trust me - I'm a journalist - and your name will be sh*t henceforth."

    Is that a journalist's version of "Don't you know who I am?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. He's going to burn through ISPs pretty fast with an attitude like that...

    ReplyDelete
  6. A guy called Neil who, on his twitter account, claims to be a journalist took this attitude with BE when I was in the BE Usergroup (reputation threats, not voilence). Spent months moaning about his connection and refused to do any diagnostics - claiming the exchange equipment was at fault. Eventually he migrated away and I kept track of his tweets... the same complaints continued on his new provider.

    I cackled.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If he is a journalist, you should (if you can) report him to his employer for misusing his position...

    ReplyDelete
  8. We had this once - a customer threatened to come over from France and sort us out (over something that wasn't our fault at all), in a very threatening manner (I still have the call recording). Needless to say she was genuinely upset, and we told customer to leave.

    He responded by taking us to court, and won, because although we had the right to terminate of course, we didn't have a "because you're an ***hole" clause - fortunately he didn't win much and we were still well rid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't see how he would win if you right to terminate he contact. We too have the right to terminate contact, and we do not have to have a reason, just as the customer does not have to have a reason.

      Delete
    2. He won because although we had the right, including a "any/no reason giving 'x' notice" the judge deemed that not a specific reason ...

      Delete
    3. Still making no sense to me on that one - (a) you don't need a reason, (b) you are under no obligation to continue supplying anyone service beyond what the contract agrees, and (c) if you have to give a reason, then "We do not wish to have this person as a customer any more" seems more than sensible to me. You must have had a really odd judge to think that terminating a contract within terms is cause for a judgement against you - if that was true, we could sue everyone who leaves us (terminates contract).

      Delete
    4. I could see a customer claiming that a supplier's purported contractual right to terminate a their contract without notice was an unfair term, and that is not wholly without basis (see e.g. page 47 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf) but, in the case of abuse by a customer towards the supplier (first occasion? Or after a warning?), I'd certainly make a strong case that immediate termination is entirely appropriate, and fully in keeping with an employer's duty to look after his/her employees.

      Delete
    5. FYI, in our case we gave 30 days notice and issued a MAC. Tempting as it was to terminate immediately.

      Delete
    6. Imminently reasonable, in my view!

      Delete
    7. Yes indeed - and we thought it was ridiculous at the time too - however, given it was a small amount of money, it wasn't worth challenging further.

      We have however since changed our terms to specifically make clear that any form of abusive behaviour, will result in termination without further notice along the lines Neil suggested (and used it once since successfully)

      Delete
  9. Ha! And now he thinks his service being restricted is "revenge" rather than a consequence of cancelling his DD when he has agreed "Home::1 has strict automatic credit controls requiring an active Direct Debit instruction at all times".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're not giving him what he's already paid for he may have a point. If he's hit his 100GB or whatever and there's no way to topup then that's different.

      Delete
    2. In a way, but terms are clear - service stops if DD cancelled, so we did what we agreed.

      Delete
    3. Hmmm. I don't think you want to go to court on that one either....

      Delete
    4. Yeah, if they've paid for the service, cutting it off because there's no payment instruction in place is a bit off. I think you'd lose in court on that one. I'd set it so the moment it went out of service (either through the next month occurring or bandwidth overage) it would restrict it.

      Delete