City Link shambles...

scottme

lovinituk wrote: »

City Link are following the correct proedures to protect themselves as they rightly should.

I suspect we're never going to agree on this topic.

Clearly City Link see the sender as their primary customer. If you look at the comments about them on any number of sites where people rate companies, almost the only positive comments are from people sending packages. On the other hand, virtually all the comments from consignees are extremely critical.

It's quite clear that City Link don't appear to care very much, if at all, about the convenience of the consignee - even though that's the person who actually pays for their "service" in the form of shipping charges - implicit or explicit - transmitted via the sender.

In my case, I was not asking City Link to deliver the package on the strength of a phone conversation. I was quite willing to leave a signed authorisation for the courier to collect and I said so to their customer service person. Also, I was able to quote the consignment number, my name and address, the sender's name, and I could even tell them the registration mark of the van which drove away without delivering my package - I'd have thought that would be enough to prove that I was who I said I was.

Some of the best customer service I've ever experienced has happened when the company representative was empowered to show some flexibility, and to do what seemed to be right in the circumstances. The absolute worst service typically comes from companies whose agents have little or no authority, and are obliged to follow a script and operate to the letter of an inflexible process or computer system. City Link are clearly in the latter camp.

scheming_gypsy

scottme wrote: »

I'm fine with that. They're my goods, I've paid for them, and I should be allowed to take the risk.

no they're not; they're still the senders until you take ownership of them so it's up to the sender to leave a note that they can be left.