B & Q debacle - staff in tears

paintpot

uktim29 wrote: »

I don't know why you've taken that tone with Chocolatechipcookies, he/she was just trying to be helpful and mentioned what would have been common sense to do in that situation.

Because, if you read my original post, I did say that the main reason for my vent was NOT because I had been kept waiting it was what happened afterwards - i.e. I became annoyed after a catalogue of events therefore had I just been kept waiting I would never had posted in the first place. Furthermore, I think chocolatechipcookies is missing the point, I, as the customer, should not have to ASK to be served when it was blindingly obvious that I was waiting.

uktim29

Yeah I know that but I wouldn't have waited in that situation, I would have politely asked. You seem to prefere waiting because you shouldn't have to rather than wanting to speed things up a bit.

paintpot

uktim29 wrote: »

Yeah I know that but I wouldn't have waited in that situation, I would have politely asked. You seem to prefere waiting because you shouldn't have to rather than wanting to speed things up a bit.

I don't prefer waiting and you are making an assumption that had I asked to be served I would have been served quicker - a rather large assumption after what ensued once someone did begin to serve me but we will never know I've been criticised for telling the advisor that I didn't think the customer service I was receiving was all that great, if I'd asked to be served however politely, I'm sure someone would have told me I was in the wrong and should have waited.

uktim29

paintpot wrote: »

I don't prefer waiting and you are making an assumption that had I asked to be served I would have been served quicker - a rather large assumption

I think you'll find it would have worked even if it is an assumption. I don't understand your point about an assumption? Because to make that point you also have to make an assumption that it won't work, a rather large one!

paintpot

uktim29 wrote: »

I think you'll find it would have worked even if it is an assumption. I don't understand your point about an assumption? Because to make that point you also have to make an assumption that it won't work, a rather large one!

"but we will never know" means I conceded that you had a point, it may have worked, but it may not have and as I was there and saw what was going on I maintain my right to be sceptical. As one bloke had already !!!!!!ered off to the tills to pay for an item with a view to returning to the returns desk later (you can't return an item and pay for an item at the same place) I'd reckon he was a teensy bit peeved as well at the speed of the service. And, as I was shot down in flames because when I was asked what was wrong with an item for the second time and answered about the wrong product I can only guess at what response I would have got to asking to be served! I'll try it when I take my next return item in (a broken door handle) and I'll let you know

dawnydee73

uktim29 wrote: »

Yeah I know that but I wouldn't have waited in that situation, I would have politely asked. You seem to prefere waiting because you shouldn't have to rather than wanting to speed things up a bit.

Not everyone would have the confidence to ask to be served especially if something was going on. As they are staff and been paid to serve that is what they should be doing, not ignoring the customers

uktim29

dawnydee73 wrote: »

As they are staff and been paid to serve that is what they should be doing, not ignoring the customers

I covered that point earlier!

paintpot

uktim29 wrote: »

I covered that point earlier!

"I don't know why you've taken that tone with (chocolatechipcookies) substitute the words dawneydee73 for chocolatechipcookies, he/she was just trying to be helpful and mentioned what would have been the common sense to do in that situation"

I think Dawnydee was just offering her opinion and as chocolatechipcookies wasn't the only one to tell me I should have said something/coughed etc I wasn't over the moon at the repetiveness either! But you didn't see it that way........:rolleyes:

uktim29

paintpot wrote: »

I think Dawnydee was just offering her opinion

That doesn't explain why it's ok only for you to be annoyed when someone quotes you with a difference of opinion.........:rolleyes:

paintpot

uktim29 wrote: »

That doesn't explain why it's ok only for you to be annoyed when someone quotes you with a difference of opinion.........:rolleyes:

Come on Uktim, give a milimeter will you, I'm not even asking for an inch . I've given an inch at least! I only threw that at you cos you didn't like my response to chocolatechipcookies and thought you would make a remark so I thought "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" when you threw your retort to dawney dee. I didn't say no-one else is allowed to get annoyed, just making a point.:rotfl: