A Letter of Complaint to TalkTalk's MD Consumer

wealdroam

FOREVER21 thank you for your post.

I hope the OP will read and understand your signature.

Money-Saving-King

editor1 wrote: »

@Money-Saving-King,

Where do you stand, or do I take it you are a shareholder, given the interest you have taken?

No I'm not a share holder! The only interest I took was the strange content of your letter.

meer53

Tl:dr

dacouch

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was driving slowly in traffic by Lambeth Bridge, a pedestrian suddenly decided to cross the zebra crossing as my friend was driving over it, my friend stopped partially on the zebra crossing. The pedestrian proceeded to give him what for.

Another friend was also in the van and told me the pedestrian was in the wrong as per the highway code but they apologised to him and went on their way.

The pedestrian wrote a letter of complaint to their boss, he turned out to be an MP and much the same as the OP used parlimentary headed paper.

The intention of using the headed paper was clearly to try and get them in as much trouble as possible and intimidate the boss. The boss read the letter and declared him a !!!!!! and made the driver of the van write a letter of apology.

There was no call for a letter but even so a letter on normal paper would have sufficed and rather than put the bosses back up would have achieved a better result

It reminded me of this thread for some reason

tom15387202

editor1 wrote: »

Dear Ms Harrison,

Having the pleasure to review your....blah blah

You certainly love using hyphens in your letter.

[FONT=&quot]utili-ty
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ex-piring
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]representa-tives
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]condi-tions
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]whatsoev-er [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]strong-arm[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]offe,r (grammer fail)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]re-quirement
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]com-petitive
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]chari-table
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]pen-sioners
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"brain impaired" (should have been [/FONT][FONT=&quot]'brain impaired')
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]asso-ciate [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ex-tracting
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]re-quirements[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]for-warded [/FONT]

I'll assume you have so many hypens because the paragraph is splitting the word to the next line. If thats the case there is this amazing function called Justify.

AJXX

editor1 wrote: »

Dear Ms Harrison,

However, do you actually implore your sales staff and "retention" staff to sell wholly unsuitable products and services to pensioners suffering "brain impairment”, be this dementia, or in my mother’s medical case, brain dam-age inflicted as a result of an influenza infection (swine flu) that migrated to her brain, rather than to her lungs and trachea; this has left her mobility and balance impaired and suffering from epilepsy, together with anxiety attacks. As such, she's not actually fit enough to determine via a phone chat the suitability of any utility, insurance and banking services, or much else for that matter – all of which is undertaken by me via the internet from Hong Kong, or from the family home when I'm visiting – which constitutes an annual visit of a minimum 50 days per annum.

Irrelevant. You should restrict inbound calls to family members only if this is really the case.

Further, my mother was instructed that under no circumstances whatsoev-er was she to divulge credit card details or agree to anything whatsoever, unless said new policy details were reviewed by myself via her email ad-dress, which I so happen to administer given my mother cannot use a com-puter as this brings on epileptic episodes – hence, she has no WIFI service within her home, unless I am visiting, this can be verified by checking my mother's account details and her broadband usage, which for the majority of the year is zero, as your sales staff are only too aware.

Again, irrelevant. Restrict incoming calls. Not TalkTalk's fault. I doubt Sales Staff are going to bother to check BB usage.

Also consider getting the account changed to fully YOUR OWN NAME and taken out of her name.

May I enquire why my mother was detained on the phone by your staff for some 40 minutes at a cost of £4.11 (such wonderful value that you profit from greatly!) and why my mother at the end of a long and exhaustive sales pitch felt obliged to release her credit card details, this despite my explicit instruction not to do so, thus agreeing to services of which she had no re-quirement, no ability to make use of and basically had been "lied" to by your staff, allegedly offering wonderful value for money at a hugely com-petitive price – none of which is true?

Consider taking her credit card off her then? again not talktalks fault.

Now, I realise you have shareholders to satisfy; however given all the chari-table work you yourself are keen to highlight, one wonders how this plays out, given the fact your company takes advantage of "brain impaired" pen-sioners, that your sales team sells wholly unsatisfactory services to the aforementioned "brain impaired" pensioner who had zero requirement, nor an actual ability to actually use the wonderful services sold to her by your overly aggressive sales team. Under law, this is termed both "mis-selling" and "misrepresentation."

Get over yourself, as discussed you need power of attorney, accounts and services transferring into your own name. THIS IS NOT TALKTALKS FAULT!

Further, are your sales team given such stringent sales targets to push your newfangled TV services that they feel obliged to use sales tactics that result in mental anguish and extreme anxiety in their victim, which necessitates medical intervention by our local GP to administer "sedatives" via injection to calm my mother down following her less than satisfactory engagement with your business and its sales representatives.

Oh for pity sake, put the violin away!

As of the time of writing this lengthy note to you I have incurred £25.00 of charges via Skype dealing with you lamentable staff via your customer ser-vice telephone line. I have wasted thus far 12 hours of my valuable time ex-tracting my mother from this deplorable situation.

Why call from Skype? I found what looks to be an international freephone number in under 1 min searching via Google.

Please be advised that, further to this correspondence, a full copy of this message will be retained, full details of all my interactions with your staff over the past 48hrs are retained, that this and other details will be for-warded to Ofcom and the Ombudsmen should a non-satisfactory response be issued by you, that this note will be posted on numerous Telecom blogs and Consumer blogs, and that I shall be corresponding with both consumer advocacy groups and the London-based media (who I interact with as part of my own business) to gain traction and highlight this deplorable conduct.

Stupid threats.

One looks forward to your feedback on this issue and to an formal apology from your business and one looks forward to recompense for the stress, anxiety and mental anguish your company and your representatives have caused my pensioner mother.

Of course the complaint cumulates in a demand for compo due to "stress" and "anxiety" as they so often do... oh please...

Kindest Regards
Mr. Christopher Rogers
Executive Director
Institute of Regulation & Risk – North Asia
Hong Kong Main Office
Tel No: 852 6624 0787
https://www.irrna.org

Rather hilariously the above company is now forever tied via Google Searches to this thread, showing once of its "executive" directors having a good winge at TalkTalk. Extremely unprofessional!

Money-Saving-King

AJXX wrote: »

Rather hilariously the above company is now forever tied via Google Searches to this thread, showing once of its "executive" directors having a good winge at TalkTalk. Extremely unprofessional!

I can't believe he did that either. After reading that letter who would ever want to do business with him or the company he works for?

Hanky_Panky

editor1 wrote: »

Mr. Couch,

However, from yours and Money Saving Kings perspective, TalkTalks behaviour is acceptable, that I should make a complaint, which I bloody well did by phone hours later, and that any promises made to me by their Preston-based people were not acted upon.

I think most on here would agree that they acted incorrectly - it's your letter most people seem to have issue with.

As someone who used to deal with complaints and issue the deadlock letter before going to the Ombudsman I also think your letter is very poor. I'll go further - it's so bad in so many ways that I very much doubt you are Executive Director of anything.