Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

AvengerSeawolf

Quentin wrote: »

Why are uw now getting called the "useless warehouse"?

It seems they have introduced new rules which mean new reps who sign up their mates find that the customers get taken off them by the company if they sign up prior to attending their training! (Note they take the customers for themselves and never give them back to the hapless new rep who managed to get all his close family signed up!). All supposed to show the regulators that uw reps don't sign up customers until fully trained!

This affects the rep who signed up the gullible as a rep (as any customers taken off the new rep also mean that the recruiter loses them too, and we know the name of the game is really the money generated by all the downline)

Reps are also asked to now collect £200 up front from tenants they want to sign up. And they only get half the commission they used to get (One exception, if the rep is also a tenant, then he gets all the commission on his own bill!)

And the uw now checks names against the land registry and if the name doesn't appear as the owner of the property, then down goes the commision by 50%! If the rep wants the land registry rechecked (eg when a customer has recently moved in, and registry details weren't updated by the time of the first check), then he has to pay an admin fee for the recheck.

All in all they aint happy bunnies!

Pffft! At it again...? I guess your NewsPlus has arrived today too - indicating to everyone that despite protestations to the contrary, you are/have been/closely know a registered distributor...

Please provide your source for 'useless warehouse'.

The company wants to encourage 'quality customers' - ie those that will pay their bill. It will secure the long term future of the company (you won't like that) and if steps need to be taken to do this, then so be it. I for one want customers who pay their bills - we don't get commission on unpaid bills!!!

Really, your obsession with the detailed minutae of our company borders on the neurotic - especially as you are not/have never been a distributor eh?;)

AvengerSeawolf

Quentin wrote: »

All in all they aint happy bunnies!

Who isn't? And where have you got this impression from?

Senior_Paper_Monitor

As some may recall, I have previously expressed by concern whether the UW operation (or at least some of that of many of the IDs) is compliant with the Data Protection Act - so despite being a (non-active until I have an appropriate response/comfort from UW) ID I am hardly a card carrying member of 'pro UW'.

Accusations that there were ASA adjudications against UW with a rather weak defence offered, caused me some further concern - so I checked:

As far as I can ascertain, there are two such adjudications (over the last 4 years):



Site Search Results

In order to provide you with the most relevant information, our search results include pages from both the Advertising Standards Authority and Committee of Advertising Practice websites.
No results found matching your search criteria


Adjudication Results


AdvertiserDateMediaProduct Category LINK REMOVED 21-12-2005
LeafletComputers and telecommunications LINK REMOVED18-04-2007LeafletUtilities


both of which involve complaints from a competitor (BT):

Telecom Plus plc t/a Utility Warehouse
Dryden House
The Edge Business Centre
Humber Road
London
NW2 6LW

Date:21st December 2005Media:LeafletSector:Computers and telecommunicationsComplaint(s) from:LondonComplaint type:Industry
Complaint

BT objected to a leaflet, for telecommunications services, headlined "Your Personal Invititation TO JOIN THE UTILITY WAREHOUSE CLUB". The text stated "Customer Benefits Include Home Phone Service available on BT Lines* Cheaper Call Charges Unlimited Free Calls to other club members ... ". Text in a table stated that customers on the Standard Service could make calls to other Utility Warehouse Discount Club customers for free during the daytime and at evenings and weekends. Text in a second table compared the Utility Warehouse Discount Club's More Talk 2 and 3 services with BT Option2 and 3. Text under the headings "Mobile Phones" and "FREECALL" stated " ... Simply choose FreeCall for yourself, your partner, your parents and all of your children for example and you'll all be able to call each other for free whenever you want. Not just evenings & weekends but all day too!". BT, who believed customers had to pay a monthly fee for the Standard Service, More Talk 2 , More Talk 3 and FreeCall packages, objected that the "free calls" claims were misleading.
Codes section: LINKS REMOVED
Adjudication

Complaint upheld
Telecom Plus, trading as The Utility Warehouse Discount Club, believed they had correctly described calls between customers as free; they said members had to sign up for their Home Phone Service, agree for Carrier Pre-Selection to be provided on their line and had to purchase all their other phone calls from them in order to benefit from free calls. They therefore believed those calls were not inclusive, but free. They argued that those calls were separate from the membership fee, because customers who chose not to use their Home Phone Service had to pay the same monthly fee, but did not receive free calls.

The ASA noted the Utility Warehouse Discount Club charged a monthly membership fee to all customers, regardless of their call plan. We considered that, because customers would still have to pay a monthly charge to the Utility Discount Warehouse Club, the calls to other club members were inclusive, not free. We told the Utility Warehouse Discount Club to remove the "free" call claims from their advertising and advised them to seek help with those changes from the CAP Copy Advice team.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 32.1 and 32.3 (Free offers).

ASA Adjudications

Telecom Plus plc t/a The Utility WarehouseDryden HouseThe Edge Business CentreHumber RoadLondonNW2 6EWNumber of complaints: 1Date:18 April 2007Media:LeafletSector:Utilities
Ad
Two leaflets for telephony services from The Utility Warehouse.

a. The first leaflet was headlined "The more services you take ... the more money you save!". Text inside stated "just think ... save money on all your utilities ... Introduction to Broadcall ... Look how much you could save in your first year!" A table underneath stated "Our service compared to BT Option 1 ... 'LLU' Customers save £212.40 ... 'Non-LLU' Customers save £116.40". Text on the following page stated "The call part of BroadCall ... Calls to our top 50 international destinations cost just 5p per minute at any time of day - that's up to 93% less than the cheapest price available from BT. The table below illustrates the savings you will make on a typical 10-minute peak call ... Destination ... Taiwan ... BT Together £7.00 ... Broadcall 52p ... You Save 93%". The back of the leaflet stated "SAVINGS FOR EVERYONE".

b. The second leaflet was entitled "Tariff Booklet". Text inside stated "Home Phone Line Rental and Value Calling Features Standard residential line rental costs just £11 per month, saving you up to £12 p.a. compared with BT. We also offer a range of great value calling features on all phone lines which have been transferred to us, at just £1 each per month - a saving of up to 42% compared with BT! Caller Display: Shows the telephone number of the person calling you ...". The ad went on to list several other services. The back of the leaflet stated "SAVINGS FOR EVERYONE".

Issue
British Telecommunications plc (BT) challenged whether:

1. The Utility Warehouse could substantiate the savings claims of £212.40 and £116.40 for Broadcall in ad (a);

2. the claim "that's up to 93% less than the cheapest price available from BT" in ad (a) was misleading and an unfair comparison, because they believed The Utility Warehouse had used BT's most expensive rate for calls to Taiwan to support the claim;

3. the claim "Standard residential line rental costs just £11 per month, saving you up to £12 p.a. compared with BT" in ad (b) was misleading and an unfair comparison, because they believed Telecom Plus charged 10% extra for customers who did not pay by direct debit, which brought their price in line with BT's and

4. the claim "We also offer a range of great value calling features on all phone lines which have been transferred to us, at just £1 each per month - a saving of up to 42% compared with BT!" in ad (b) was misleading and an unfair comparison, because they offered caller display services at no additional cost and believed an absolute comparison could therefore not be made.

5. The ASA challenged whether The Utility Warehouse could substantiate the claims "SAVINGS FOR EVERYONE" in both ads and "save money on all your utilities" in ad (a).
The CAP Code: LINKS REMOVED
Response
The Utility Warehouse argued that all the claims were accurate at the time the leaflets were created and that the date of the comparisons was clearly stated. They asserted that, if any of the data was out of date, it would be reviewed and corrected when they reprinted their leaflets. They did not comment specifically on any of the points of complaint or send the ASA any evidence to support their claims.

Assessment
1., 2., 3., 4. & 5. Upheld
The ASA considered that, because we had not seen evidence to support any of the challenged claims, the ad was misleading.

On point 1, the ad breached CAP code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

On points 2, 3 & 4, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).

On point 5, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
We told The Utility Warehouse not to use the claims again without substantiating evidence, which should be sent to us on request. We reminded them that they should ensure all comparisons were fair.


In the interest of balance for the thread (not one of its strong points I would suggest)

1. Nothing therein indicates the use of 'they are independent reps' defense by UW. I re-quote the original 'accusation':

Originally Posted by Cardew
Mike,
Well if UW don't hide behind the 'they are independent reps' defence:


2. Neither of these items would have caused 'repurcussions in corridors of power' - they would be considered by any corporation involved in competitive advertising as minor issues (involving no censorship, fine or desist instruction beyond the ASA adjudication that apparently they complied with, as would have been the case - actioned via the OFT - had they not done so).

1carminestocky

They are the ASA adjudications I dug up by googling but clearly Quentin is going to publish the link to another ASA adjudication that states that UW put forward the defence he alleged they did...isn't he? Or is this another 'UW-beating prepaid cashback card' fantasy?

Quentin

Mike_by_the_Sea wrote: »

Hi uptomyeyeballs

Other things to add to your list

A comprehensive Business Package for SME's
3 levels of membership which include provide increased benefits, including freephone customer services, freephone broadband technical support, free accidental death cover and free redundancy protection.
An exclusive membership discount directory offering savings on everything from exotic holidays to spectacles
Access to a full on-line history of all bills
Installation of new Land-lines

etc etc etc

Mike

PS I am an ID with UW

Looks like blatant touting/advertising.

And more trouble caused by rogue uw reps.

This time over at moneysupermarket:

Due to persistent attempts by Utility Warehouse distributors to tout for business on this community forum - contravening the moneysupermarket.com Community Standards and Terms of Service - this post has now been locked. Touting for business, advertising and marketing tactics will not be tolerated by this community.

Just remind us who got the uw reps thread in the referrers forum here finally locked after trying to promote a so called charity appeal involving getting MSE members to sign up for expensive energy or as new distributors, then refusing to say what the uw rep was getting out of the "charity" event when asked by a Mod, resulting in the thread getting locked because of the forum rule breaking by the reps:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=966

1carminestocky

Hmmm...Quentin appears to have forgotten all about his/her allegations regarding UWs ASA defence. What a truly interesting chracter he/she is...

AvengerSeawolf

1carminestocky wrote: »

Hmmm...Quentin appears to have forgotten all about his/her allegations regarding UWs ASA defence. What a truly interesting chracter he/she is...

Yet again.

Posts supposed inflammatory anti-UW vitriol, is called out on it, and once again can't back up his allegations resorting instead to some kind of childish 'I'm telling' behaviour more commonly seen in the classroom of 5 year olds...

He hasn't revealed his sources for his 'they're not happy bunnies' statement yet either...oh, that's right - he won't!

1carminestocky

How many more subjects is he/she going to have to edit out of posts he/she quotes from now on? Cashback card and now the ASA allegation. What next? The posts he/she quotes from other posters will resemble a rap record when it's played on Radio 1...

AvengerSeawolf

Quentin.

Like in any business/industry, quite simply there are some UW ID's who do not adhere to the rules. We all recognise and appreciate that. You do not have to keep pointing it out again and again ad infinitum. WE GET IT!! There are however, many, many more who DO adhere to the rules.

What makes you truly laughable though is your constant rehashing of old information and your refusal to back up most of the small amount of 'new' stuff you put on here! Your role as self-appointed UW Whistleblower/Policeman would be a bit interesting otherwise.

Let's see...

1) Keggs had a bad day/experience and posted about it on a forum - ONCE.
2) Nige also discussed some 'atrocious' experience - ONCE.
3) Your cashback card?
4) The link in post 8702 is from 2004! Per-lease!
5) The monotonous Spanish teachers video link...

I personally wouldn't mind if you were coming on here with significant numbers of current UW complaints but you're not. The points you make are weak examples, few in number, OLD, and more often than not, unable to be verified. Makes you look a bit, well, silly in the eyes of readers regardless of where they sit in the UW 'debate'.

I'm sure there is more that you have embarrassed yourself with...

Cardew

1carminestocky wrote: »

How many more subjects is he/she going to have to edit out of posts he/she quotes from now on? Cashback card and now the ASA allegation. .

Perhaps he has 'your people' helping him.

You know the ones who are helping you find out about the Click 5 misinformation you posted so may times.

Or the UW calls that 'blow BT out of the water'.

Nobody on this forum has posted such inaccurate statements, as often, yet you feel that you can lecture others.

Stick to what you are good at and search for 'Grabbit' items!