The Great Hastings Direct Rip Off!

dunstonh

trukdiver wrote: »

Lidl and Aldi are reputedly cheaper but they charge for bags, don't accept credit cards, don't have a customer service desk, don't help with packing, have narrower checkouts and have a smaller range of goods. Until recently, they didn't give cashback at the till and didn't even use baskets.

Good example. Lower cost but all those things stripped out and either not available or available at additional cost.

stugib

GingerBob wrote: »

They pay for the infrastructure, staffing and everything else by their core business, not by routine administrative work. Policy changes are effected instantly and cost the company virtually nothing. The vast majority of staff would be employed even if no one changed anything. They are a fixed cost.

Yes, but the fixed cost is based on predicting how many customers will make mid-term changes. Say it costs £500,000pa to employ people to do that. You've got 100,000 customers, 20,000 of them will make adjustments. You can either charge those people wanting admin £25 each, or you can add £5 to all your customers' premiums. Doing the latter means you'll probably drop ~5-10 places on comparison sites and lose the business in the first place.

GingerBob_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Good example. Lower cost but all those things stripped out and either not available or available at additional cost.

Not comparable. You're talking about services they simply don't provide, rather than rip-off charges for something they have to provide and for which some people have to have.

GingerBob_3

stugib wrote: »

Yes, but the fixed cost is based on predicting how many customers will make mid-term changes. Say it costs £500,000pa to employ people to do that. You've got 100,000 customers, 20,000 of them will make adjustments. You can either charge those people wanting admin £25 each, or you can add £5 to all your customers' premiums. Doing the latter means you'll probably drop ~5-10 places on comparison sites and lose the business in the first place.

A brilliant example of made up tosh. If no one changed anything they'd probably still have to employ the same number of call centre staff to deal with the myriad of "non chargeable" enquires they get. You could equally argue that those paying the rip off fees are subsidising those who just ring up to clarify some details or whatever. Perhaps the insurance companies should charge you per enquiry, whatever the nature?

stugib

GingerBob wrote: »

A brilliant example of made up tosh. If no one changed anything they'd probably still have to employ the same number of call centre staff to deal with the myriad of "non chargeable" enquires they get.

Can assure you it's in no way made up, that's just how running a call centre business is. Your argument makes no sense - the enquiries and mid-term adjustments are not linked - reducing one would not affect the other.

GingerBob_3

stugib wrote: »

Can assure you it's in no way made up, that's just how running a call centre business is. Your argument makes no sense - the enquiries and mid-term adjustments are not linked - reducing one would not affect the other.

Your figures were guesses/assumptions. I didn't say there's a link. I'm merely pointing out to you that these companies have to employ customer service staff and policy changes are just a part of their job. So why charge someone for an instantaneous update to their policy and not charge someone who's on the phone for an hour or more with some complicated query about the policy? Answer: they can easily charge the former, but not the latter, so they do. Rip off Britain at its best - or should I say 'worst'.

stugib

GingerBob wrote: »

Your figures were guesses/assumptions. I didn't say there's a link. I'm merely pointing out to you that these companies have to employ customer service staff and policy changes are just a part of their job.

Of course they are, the figures are to show the concept. It's much much more complicated than that to predict how many people you need and when. Your hopelessly naive in saying you just employ a bunch of people and let them sit there twiddling their thumbs until the phone rings so it doesn't matter why people are ringing.

dunstonh

stugib wrote: »

Of course they are, the figures are to show the concept. It's much much more complicated than that to predict how many people you need and when. Your hopelessly naive in saying you just employ a bunch of people and let them sit there twiddling their thumbs until the phone rings so it doesn't matter why people are ringing.

I think you have to accept that some people do not understand how to run a business or the costs and issues involved.

GingerBob_3

dunstonh wrote: »

I think you have to accept that some people do not understand how to run a business or the costs and issues involved.

And you are clearly one of them.

GingerBob_3

stugib wrote: »

Your hopelessly naive in saying you just employ a bunch of people and let them sit there twiddling their thumbs until the phone rings so it doesn't matter why people are ringing.

:rotfl:

Where did I say that?