complaint against first choice help please

vyle

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Nonsense. If service providers and retailers stood by their commitments and took responsibilty when things go wrong, they wouldn't have so many people suing them. This does not hamper customer service, because if the service was adequate in the first place, there would no need to complain.

Sometimes mistakes happen.

Here's an example:

There's an indian takeaway I use a lot. Their food is great, the service is friendly and the prices are reasonable.

In the 12 years I've been using them, they've messed up perhaps 3 orders, but each time, they've given a refund, or a replacement plus a couple of extras.

Much like the limo company with OP, who gave the money back and also paid for the taxi.

Now, I've continued to use this takeaway because of its track record of being great. You seem to be of the opinion that I should not only get the refund and extra food, but sue as well.

If I did that, they'd probably go out of business. And why? for a simple human error which was rectified.

And the compensation culture HAS hampered customer service. Take carers who aren't allowed to stop their service users from falling over, because the users might sue if they fall anyway, and the staff might sue if they hurt themselves when they catch the user.

And consider Sainsburys' policy (at least in hastings a couple of years ago, don't know if it's changed) of training staff not to help if somebody has fallen over in the aisles, in case the customer tries to sue them.

And, of course, reminding them to say, "YOU have had an accident, i'll call for an ambulance." In case saying something different puts liability onto them.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How many successful claims were there on that basis?

I don't know if they even got to court. Usually head office just gives in and gives the customer some money before it gets that far, but I don't work in that area, I only see the angry letters which I then pass on.

That said, if those who make these recommendations are not qualified to do so, they shouldn't be making them in the first place. For example, if the brackets are not suitable for the wall and/or the television, the one who makes the recommendation must take the responsibility if something goes wrong.

So the customer then. They went somewhere else, bought a bracket marketed as being suitable for a VESA mounted 40" tv. They then buy a TV that doesn't use the VESA standard. I served that customer myself and as soon as I mentioned brackets (because they asked for a wall mounted install with the tv) they cut me off saying, "We're spending enough in here already!We've already got a bracket, we don't need another one."

Seeing as most shops that sell brackets are self service, in that you see a sign saying what size they fit, you have a box in front of you that lists all the relevant info and can make the choice yourself. Therefore the customer made the mistake there.

This is an excuse, for example, that carpet shops have been making for years. They "recommend" a fitter (when, in reality, the shop contracts the fitter). The fitter damages the floor, or wall, of the customer and the carpet shop denies all responsibility.

This may be a case in a lot of places, but from my personal experience where I work, it usually comes up when customers say, "well who WILL do it then."

Have you ever tried to buy something in a shop and upon finding it isn't sold by that shop said, "do you know where I can get it?" It's the same thing.

If I said, "I don't sell that cable," and then inform the customer that they might have some luck in Maplin, does that mean I'm legally liable should Maplin not be suitable?

Because customers tend to expect me to know what every shop sells, how much it costs and where those shops are.

It's the same with installers, and I know that the alternative ones have no financial connection to us, so we're not making any money on recommending as a courtesy (which as I mentioned, we no longer do).

If a doctor recommends that a patient takes a specific medication and it turns out to be totally unsuitable, whose fault is that?

You go to a doctor for a diagnosis and for a professional recommendation. There's a big difference between a doctor's recommendation and someone in a shop saying, "We don't do that. Here's a guy who might, though."

One is offering a solution to a specific problem, the other is offering another option for the customer to consider.

blondie7

At what point have I ever said I have excepted the offer for the taxi?

Its not the limo company giving me my money back as they never had any record of a booking so therefore they have not had the money it is the third party that first choice used.

wealdroam

blondie7 wrote: »

At what point have I ever said I have excepted the offer for the taxi?

I don't believe you have said that you have accepted the offer of a refund on the taxi fare.
But you have been offered it...

blondie7 wrote: »

They said they are offering me the money back for the limo and the taxi fare which I had to pay to get us to the hotel...

Can you really not see that you are being offered more than you have paid?

Can you not see that you are being offered compensation for the failed limo ride?

blondie7 wrote: »

...but it is what I have already paid so really not offering me anything.

Surely you expected to pay for a transfer, beit by limo or whatever?
Can you not understand that [STRIKE]giving[/STRIKE] offering you a free transfer is offering you more than a refund?

Pollycat

blondie7 wrote: »

Well I have read through all your posts and I can thank some of you's but not others.

You mean you want to thank the people who agree with you but not those posters who don't......

A number of people have asked you what you think a reasonable amount of compensation would be for your disappointment but so far you've not answered.

It sounds (at least to me) that you're not going to get much further with First Choice.

In reply #7 I gave you a link to a holiday website that has a connection with a firm of travel solicitors.
It would be really interesting to hear what they think of your chance of compensation.

Flyboy152

vyle wrote: »

Sometimes mistakes happen.

Here's an example:

There's an indian takeaway I use a lot. Their food is great, the service is friendly and the prices are reasonable.

In the 12 years I've been using them, they've messed up perhaps 3 orders, but each time, they've given a refund, or a replacement plus a couple of extras.

Much like the limo company with OP, who gave the money back and also paid for the taxi.

Now, I've continued to use this takeaway because of its track record of being great. You seem to be of the opinion that I should not only get the refund and extra food, but sue as well.

If I did that, they'd probably go out of business. And why? for a simple human error which was rectified.

It is not the fact mistakes happen, it is how they are resolved is the issue. That said, we are talking about holidays here, not take-aways; two very different products.

And the compensation culture HAS hampered customer service. Take carers who aren't allowed to stop their service users from falling over, because the users might sue if they fall anyway, and the staff might sue if they hurt themselves when they catch the user.

More myths, which carers are prevented from doing this (and not the ones picked up by the Daily Heil)?

And consider Sainsburys' policy (at least in hastings a couple of years ago, don't know if it's changed) of training staff not to help if somebody has fallen over in the aisles, in case the customer tries to sue them.

And, of course, reminding them to say, "YOU have had an accident, i'll call for an ambulance." In case saying something different puts liability onto them.

More Daily Heil? Or, as usual, only in the head of someone in Sainsbury's who didn't really have a clue?

I don't know if they even got to court. Usually head office just gives in and gives the customer some money before it gets that far, but I don't work in that area, I only see the angry letters which I then pass on.

So, in other words, none, there have never been any cases of this.

So the customer then. They went somewhere else, bought a bracket marketed as being suitable for a VESA mounted 40" tv. They then buy a TV that doesn't use the VESA standard. I served that customer myself and as soon as I mentioned brackets (because they asked for a wall mounted install with the tv) they cut me off saying, "We're spending enough in here already!We've already got a bracket, we don't need another one."

Seeing as most shops that sell brackets are self service, in that you see a sign saying what size they fit, you have a box in front of you that lists all the relevant info and can make the choice yourself. Therefore the customer made the mistake there.

And the problem with that is.......?

This may be a case in a lot of places, but from my personal experience where I work, it usually comes up when customers say, "well who WILL do it then."

Then you point them in the direction where they can get that information.

Have you ever tried to buy something in a shop and upon finding it isn't sold by that shop said, "do you know where I can get it?" It's the same thing.

If I said, "I don't sell that cable," and then inform the customer that they might have some luck in Maplin, does that mean I'm legally liable should Maplin not be suitable?

Because customers tend to expect me to know what every shop sells, how much it costs and where those shops are.

Why on Earth would you be? I can't say I have ever heard of anyone being sued on that basis; have you?

It's the same with installers, and I know that the alternative ones have no financial connection to us, so we're not making any money on recommending as a courtesy (which as I mentioned, we no longer do).

But then your employers should not have been making recommendations, if they do not know who the third party are and whether they are capable of doing the work. If they are not competent to make such recommendations, they shouldn't advising anyone. If you were to recommend fitters to install my television and it crashes to the floor, you have to take joint responsibility. You (and your employers) have a duty to carry out your work with due skill and care and should therefore be just as accountable.

You go to a doctor for a diagnosis and for a professional recommendation. There's a big difference between a doctor's recommendation and someone in a shop saying, "We don't do that. Here's a guy who might, though."

One is offering a solution to a specific problem, the other is offering another option for the customer to consider.

That is exactly what a doctor does when he advises you to buy a medicine at a pharmacist. There really is little difference in a television shop, who the consumer expects them to be proportionately competent about televisions, as their doctor is about medicine.

If you say to a customer that "Joe Bloggs and Co TV Fitters" can install your television, it is the same as your doctor telling you that you can go to the pharmacist and buy some "Remedy Co Ltd Cough Linctus."

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

I don't believe you have said that you have accepted the offer of a refund on the taxi fare.
But you have been offered it...



Can you really not see that you are being offered more than you have paid?

Can you not see that you are being offered compensation for the failed limo ride?


Surely you expected to pay for a transfer, beit by limo or whatever?
Can you not understand that [STRIKE]giving[/STRIKE] offering you a free transfer is offering you more than a refund?

But that depends on what value the OP places on the disappointment and inconvenience. That is something for her to choose and for a judge to decide on its validity. It is not for anyone here to pass judgment upon.

Flyboy152

I really do despair at some people's reasons for posting on these boards, I really do. Have any of them ever read the title of this site? The site is here to help people save money and resolve consumer rights issues, it is quite self-explanatory. If there is anyone who can explain this, so that mistakes are avoided when posting, the consuming public will be very grateful.

vyle

Flyboy152 wrote: »

More myths, which carers are prevented from doing this (and not the ones picked up by the Daily Heil)?

My sister in law, when she was a carer in Cambridge. She left because she was sick of having to let people fall over and watch them hurt themselves.

More Daily Heil? Or, as usual, only in the head of someone in Sainsbury's who didn't really have a clue?

My husband was told to do so during his health and safety training back in 2007.

I don't read the daily mail, I find it only useful as dog toilet training aid, and even then, the local newspaper does it just as well for free.

So, in other words, none, there have never been any cases of this.

though the threat of legal action and the bad publicity and cost of fighting a court case make it awkward enough.

And the problem with that is.......?

There's no problem with the customer being at fault, but your stance appears to be that anybody BUT the customer can be at fault.

Then you point them in the direction where they can get that information.

...

Why on Earth would you be? I can't say I have ever heard of anyone being sued on that basis; have you?

But then your employers should not have been making recommendations, if they do not know who the third party are and whether they are capable of doing the work. If they are not competent to make such recommendations, they shouldn't advising anyone. If you were to recommend fitters to install my television and it crashes to the floor, you have to take joint responsibility. You (and your employers) have a duty to carry out your work with due skill and care and should therefore be just as accountable.

If I'd be liable for saying "We're not going to do a sky installation, you'd be better off asking sky" (as you seem to state I would be below) then surely it's the same thing as saying "you'd be better off trying to buy that from maplin."

That is exactly what a doctor does when he advises you to buy a medicine at a pharmacist. There really is little difference in a television shop, who the consumer expects them to be proportionately competent about televisions, as their doctor is about medicine.

If you say to a customer that "Joe Bloggs and Co TV Fitters" can install your television, it is the same as your doctor telling you that you can go to the pharmacist and buy some "Remedy Co Ltd Cough Linctus."

It's more a case of me saying "give them a ring and ask them." Is that the same as saying, "they can do it?"

If that's the case, would I have legal grounds to sue the BT or Yellow Pages directories if somebody in their books weren't competent?

fthl

The site is here to help people save money and resolve consumer rights issues

In this case, that would be pointing out that there is no realistic prospect of a claim that would achieve more than the OP has been offered.

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But that depends on what value the OP places on the disappointment and inconvenience. That is something for her to choose and for a judge to decide on its validity. It is not for anyone here to pass judgment upon.

Sorry... but what are you talking about?

I did not place any value on any compensation that has or should be offered.

As you rightly say, no-one here can place a value on the disappointment and inconvenience suffered.

The point I was trying to make was that the OP appears not to understand that she has already been offered compensation.

I obviously failed to get that message across to you, but that doesn't matter... I was not addressing you.