Orange PAC Code confusion - still billing me-please please help!

luci

Thanks both.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

Up to you, but don't leave it until the last day. I wouldn't risk giving it to the new provider later than 4-5 days before it expires.

Yes.

As above.

I've never used a PAC myself but I suppose this might be the best option and then it safeguards any delays. Just means you will have a couple of extra £'s to pay.

Silk

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I've worked in that department (although admittedly not for a while) and there is a script that they have to follow which includes the relevant details.

With all due respect we have seen many times that they don't always follow the script hence the number of complaints we see on the net over the years regarding the attitudes and mistakes.

Whilst it's probable that the script was followed, without the transcript of the conversation it's pure speculation as to what was said.

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

As for being given a disconnection date in September, I can only assume that this was actually the PAC expiry date NOT the disconnection date. Like I said, the agents have no reason to give false info.

Again it's speculation that the OP is confused with the difference between disconnection and expiry which although unlikely may be the case but who's to know without seeing a transcript.

I can understand your desire to defend fellow workers if you are employed by Orange in that capacity. But considering that Orange broke the record for the number of complaints against them in recent years it would not be surprising to find out the OP is correct in their version of events

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I also do think it's courteous to be given an explanation (as I used to), but if they weren't given one, then the letter explains it anyway.

What do you mean "courteous" ?
I thought you said it was a requirement in the script not courtesy ???

oopsadaisydoddle

Silk wrote: »

With all due respect we have seen many times that they don't always follow the script hence the number of complaints we see on the net over the years regarding the attitudes and mistakes.

Whilst it's probable that the script was followed, without the transcript of the conversation it's pure speculation as to what was said.

Again it's speculation that the OP is confused with the difference between disconnection and expiry which although unlikely may be the case but who's to know without seeing a transcript.

I can understand your desire to defend fellow workers if you are employed by Orange in that capacity. But considering that Orange broke the record for the number of complaints against them in recent years it would not be surprising to find out the OP is correct in their version of events


What do you mean "courteous" ?
I thought you said it was a requirement in the script not courtesy ???

I just said it was courteous that they were given an explanation - I meant in addition to reading a script. I have had MANY conversations with customers where I have read from scripts (which explain things clearly and straight to the point) and they have still required an in depth explanation as to what things mean.

I never said that I thought for definite that OP had confused the PAC expiry with contract end date - just that it may have been the case.

I also stated that I cannot guarantee every single agent says it every single time because I don't listen to all of the calls. I'm not saying OP is lying or has misunderstood - just giving another possible angle.

And I know from experience that there are people out there who can be told something but only hear what they want to hear or don't really listen. I'm not saying that OP is one of those people, just that it happens.

And yes, the script is a requirement.

Techhead_2

Silk wrote: »

With all due respect we have seen many times that they don't always follow the script hence the number of complaints we see on the net over the years regarding the attitudes and mistakes.

Whilst it's probable that the script was followed, without the transcript of the conversation it's pure speculation as to what was said.

Again it's speculation that the OP is confused with the difference between disconnection and expiry which although unlikely may be the case but who's to know without seeing a transcript.

I can understand your desire to defend fellow workers if you are employed by Orange in that capacity. But considering that Orange broke the record for the number of complaints against them in recent years it would not be surprising to find out the OP is correct in their version of events


What do you mean "courteous" ?
I thought you said it was a requirement in the script not courtesy ???

I think you have misunderstood the post you quote. I don't think there is any need for you to go on the attack like that.

As it stands we can only speculate but as there is no advantage to the agent in not giving the explanation (and potential problems for not doing so) AND the OP's rather muddled approach then I think it very likely that it was mentioned. However, given the letter explains all the point is rather moot. Unless, people feel that consumer protection legislation should be worded to assume that people can't be bothered to read or note what is said to them.


(Incidentally, I believe that according to Ofcom figures it is Three who have the highest proportion of complaints)

grumbler

Techhead wrote: »

... there is no advantage to the agent in not giving the explanation ....

There is no direct advantage, but there are various factors contributing to the possible failure - like big number of calls in the queue, average call duration statistics etc.
You have to know well in what mess Orange telephone CS are after this EE adventure started. Numerous people reported giving up after waiting in a queue for an hour and being unable to contact Orange by any means: online system not working, snail mail being simply ignored for weeks.

And I believe that offering customers a PAC 'just in case' is a deliberate dodgy practice common for some networks' CS.

Silk

Techhead wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood the post you quote. I don't think there is any need for you to go on the attack like that.

I wasn't going "on the attack" as you
say ...I was pointing out that it's not unusual or unheard of for service reps to make mistakes and whilst oopsadaisy my be one of the better ones that does not apply accross the board as we have seen here and elsewhere.

Techhead wrote: »

As it stands we can only speculate but as there is no advantage to the agent in not giving the explanation (and potential problems for not doing so) AND the OP's rather muddled approach then I think it very likely that it was mentioned. However, given the letter explains all the point is rather moot. Unless, people feel that consumer protection legislation should be worded to assume that people can't be bothered to read or note what is said to them.

As you will see from my posts thats what I've been saying regards speculation untill a transcript is looked at.
We all know what should happen and also what does happen most of the time but untill the transcript is read the jury's out.

And as I also pointed out ...why should the OP read a letter regarding details of pac codes if they had no intention of using them.

Techhead wrote: »

(Incidentally, I believe that according to Ofcom figures it is Three who have the highest proportion of complaints)

Yes overall 3 are the worst ....However look at the graph and tell me which network recorde the highest number of complaints