TalkTalk Usage Meter Is B0rked

bod1467

TT responded purely with what was on the system. No question was asked to validate that the system contents were correct. (There have been many instances of engineer charges being dubious at best, and downright "fraudulent" at times. This is a common scam, as many customers won't have the technical nous to know they're being hoodwinked. A decent ISP would work for their CUSTOMER, not blithely accept what BTOR put on the system. TT take the path of least resistance).

Maybe I should use less bait - this is too easy.

TalkTalk

Hi Bod,

There are multiple instances of OCE's (including OCE_Em) specifically questioning the Application of TRC's and also disputing BT OR notes and engineer reports where applicable. In this case the evidence was clear that the matter was internal, its only the OP vague comments re "wiring in the master socket" which leads to your assumption that any further investigation is required.

However all internal wiring will terminate onto the faceplate of the NTE-5 socket (as confirmed by the OP in the thread as an NTE-5 type socket installed by Open Reach) which is the customers responsibility to maintain. TT testing involves the removal of the faceplate which would disconnect the internal wiring also. Hence Emma's advice that the matter was internal and therfore the end users responsibility.

If the OP provides evidence this is inaccurate then further investigation will be initiated however the BT Open Reach engineer is qualified to attend the appointment and report the cause of the issue, without evidence to dispute this there is no reason to question the evidence in the fault report. Any disputes would require evidence to support them,, otherwise its just an unsubstatiated assumption.

With regards your baiting comment, we have a duty to respond to posts on a number of forums. Far from baiting us your merely providing further engagement for the Online Community Department and increasing our online presence and visibility to TalkTalk Customers as a support function.

Regards

Mark
TalkTalk Online Community Department

bod1467

Weasel words again. There has been NO clarification as to EXACTLY which wiring was touched by BTOR. The "evidence" is far from clear in that thread - there have been many instances of BTOR charging for a callout then being made to admit they were wrong and the TRC has been refunded. (And no - I'm not doing your work for you. You can find them yourself).

Yes - extension wiring connected to the faceplate is the customer's responsibility. Nothing in the thread CONFIRMS that it was this wiring that BTOR repaired, just a statement of what the BTOR report says. This question needs to be SPECIFICALLY asked otherwise that thread will go round in circles - the OP will likely NOT KNOW that there is a demarcation point. Indeed the OPs reply to that thread (later than your post here) clearly demonstrates this lack of knowledge.

TT could be way more helpful in such situations - the stock responses tend to inflame the situation rather than soothe it, thus leading to greater customer frustration. So I'm not making an assumption - I'm highlighting a deficiency.

bod1467

Update: a MEMBER has asked the pertinent question.

TalkTalk

Hi Bod,

The OP themselves have stated the presumed as OR installed the NTE-5 that OR are responsible for it. This isnt necessarily the case as OR do not take responsibility for the faceplate or any extensions terminated to it.

This doesnt constitute proof that the issue was or wasnt internal either, its a matter of 6 of one and half a dozen. However, Open Reach have provided an engineer report as proof of their findings, the OP has only stated they assumed it was covereed by Open Reach. You have advised yourself that there are perfectly valid scenarios where this might not be the case so the OP will have to provide evidence to support their claim (as Open Reach have already done so in the form of an engineer report)

The OCE will pick this up in due course and respond to the customer accordingly.

As previously advised i can assure you no "stock responses" or "scripts" are used by the TTMF team *(you will note all my replies are tailored to your exact points, not generic replies) and all responses are made to the individual customers requests. In this case the OP queired the charge as they thought the matter was in the master socket. OCE investigated and found the engineer reports state the issue was internal. The OP has queried this and the OCE will investigate further in due course with further questioning (such as the example posted by RedChiz)

At no point has this seemed to cause the OP any amount of frustration and until such a time that a customer does raise greivance with our handling of such matters there is no need to revise this approach. You assumed this has caused the OP frustration and has enflamed the situation but there is no indication of this from the OP only your presumptions. The OP has raised a valid question and this will be answered by the OCE as appropriate.

Regards

Mark
TalkTalk Online Community Department

bod1467

Very nice. Respond specific to a single thread when you know full well that my comments are a general view of MANY threads on the TTMF, and that the thread I linked was simply an easy example. Well done.

I don't believe I have said anywhere that the OCEs are "script monkeys", have I? The other communications channel (phone/email) certainly are (if TTMF forum posts are to be believed, and I've no reason to assume your customers are lying - do you?)

PS - did you look at the thread linked in my OP, BEFORE it was edited? Have you seen all the posts that were deleted? (Just to bring this thread back on topic - re the usage meter).

AnnieD_2

TalkTalk_Company_Representative wrote: »

No the forum isnt the only way to get the matter resolved, you can call email or send a letter

So how come I have been repeatedly emailing your 'customer service' asking for help and support since 17th November getting nowhere fast. And so much for the promotional call last night. I spoke too soon as I thought the guy was being genuine and honest when he said he would do what he could to help me and that I would get a call back straight away from someone that could sort out my problems. Guess what. Nothing. I give up. It's just too frustrating and the lack of concern, support or even basic respect is increasingly upsetting :-(

TalkTalk

Hi Annie,



I cant comment on response time for specific departments as these will vary depending on the number of queries received via the respective mediums. However, I can advise if you post on the Members forum or Tweet us @Talktalkcare we wil investigate into your issues and provide feedback on any promised callbacks that were not received.

@Bod - In refernce to the "script monkeys" comment was this not the purpose of your previously edited "quote" in post #9?

This parody quote was proportng to be from the TTMF team, not from phone or email support, in which case it represents our department. You suggested that our department us scripts in this very post.

In regards to the general threads on the TTMF, you openly advised above your not suggesting we are script monkeys. As sucgh im unsure how this relates to your pointy of us posting "stock responses". Either we post "stock responses" and thus fall into the realm of "script monkeys" or were not "script monkeys" in which cases there are no "stock responses"... The two points your trying to make seem to invalidate each other and actually dont benefit the OP of this thread in any way.


As for the removed post yes ive looked at these (as admins we can still see the removed comments) and these consist of alot of "me too" comments, which are irrelevant spam. We openly advise all customers to post their own thread so we can manage their issues effectively. As OCe work from oldest to newest posts when one member spams "me too" over other members threads it pushes the thread to the back of the queue. This type of activity and spamming is a breach of the TTMF Forum rules and such comments are removed. If customers wish to use the TTMF forum customers are free to do so, provided they agree to and abide by the terms of use whilst contributing to the TalkTalk Online Community.

Regards

Mark
TalkTalk Online Community Department

visidigi

I am astonished. For an online community representative you are exceptionally confrontational.

You're disputing minor details with members - you have previously stated you have an obligation to reply - but hows about you do the corporate thing and take off the teflon coat and say ok - thanks for your feedback.

Its like, you've got a customer writing here that they are fed up with the poor service being offered and all you say is tweet or post on the members forum. It sounds like you're only here to direct people to the member forum or twitter, why not actually HELP a customer.

Honestly, you would rather cover your own backside about a tongue-in-cheek quote (which had a wink on it btw) than help a customer, so is this TT online department about help or corporate image.

I know what currently comes across in the way you 'talk' whether you meant to or not.

TalkTalk

hi visidigi,

We did use to provide direct support via the MSE site. However as one particular ISp was abusing the MSe forum to solicit sales MSE took the option to revoke all ISP from sending and receiving private messages.

As such where we nee dot chekc specific account details (as in the case of the OP) we refer to our forum or twitter where we have a private facilty to confirm security detials.

I have offered general advice to the customer and directed them to the support functions we offer (which is the purpose of our presence here) where this is necessary to continue investigations.

With regards the communications with Bod I have requeste further information in regards to their points so this can be looked at further (including the refernced threads and various queries posted following this) and that we can address each point raised individually.

Although you amy consider this is being confrontational this is not the case. Bod made a point which is apparently contradicting itself, I have highlighted this but it consitutes no confrontation. When any company is mentioned in the public domain they have the right to reply. In my reply all I have done is requested clarification and evidence to support the claims made so they can be investigated fully. Without obtaining the relevant supporting evidence merely posting "thanks for the feedback" appears disingenuous where insufficient evidence is obtained to effectively investigate the points raised (this is actually part of Bod previous point in earlier post)

I have previously extended the offer to yourself as to any suggestions you have to help us improve our online engagement. Your welcome to provide this if you wish.

Regards

Mark
TalkTalk Online Community Department