Play.com - but don't try and email us

Beatles mania
It is sad to already have another example of companies making the lives of their customers more difficult. This time it is Play.com, the online shopping site (that began as just a games and DVD shop).

I have only recently got an Xbox 360. As someone who is concerned about the environment I was annoyed to find that the default controllers are not rechargeable unless you spend another £15 on a rechargeable battery pack. So the default is wasteful and environmentally harmful batteries - shame on you, Microsoft. I got round this by using only wired controllers, and getting one of the rechargeable battery packs for the one wireless controller.



I had the game Beatles Rock Band, and wanted a guitar controller, so I ordered a 'Rock Band: The Beatles - Rickenbacker 325 Guitar Controller' from Play.com for £39.99. My plan was to use that rechargeable battery pack for this guitar too. I looked around online, but neither the Play site nor other sites said there would be a problem with using the rechargeable battery pack with this guitar.

However it arrived just now, and guess what? It only uses normal batteries, and is incompatible with Xbox 360 rechargeable battery packs. I think it is ridiculous that an Xbox 360 peripheral is not compatible with a basic piece of Xbox 360 kit like a battery pack. As such this guitar is now useless to me. I wish I had gone for the X-Plorer Wired Guitar Controller (my nephew got one from Amazon for £26.99 recently). No battery waste, no recharge issues, good long cable, responsive and reliable = no problems.

So the next step would be to arrange a return of this unused piece of kit with Play.com. At this point the inevitable clash with Crappy Customer Service began. I followed the returns process on their site, but when it came to the step of selecting the item to return, I couldn't - as the screenshot below shows, the guitar was still 'in process' (i.e. not sent yet according to the Play.com internal systems) - even though I had the device in my house! So the system wouldn't let me return it.

NB Still in processing, therefore no red button to return it.

"Help - I need somebody!"
At this point it was necessary to contact someone at Play.com. All their help buttons lead to this page. It has 97 links on. Guess what? Not one of them is a 'contact us' link, or includes an email address for support. Again, this is a company making it as difficult as possible to email someone to resolve an issue.

I decided that I had to resort to reporting this as a technical fault - on their form for this I typed: "There is no 'contact us' link anywhere on the site. I want to contact someone." But even that didn't work - see screenshots below!

The 'technical support' form.

The result fo filling it in. If only companies would just provide a reliable email address, rather than relying on buggy forms. In the last year I have encountered at least 15 online forms that failed to work. Also online forms don't automatically give the sender a copy of what they said, unlike email. "Hey, companies - please let your customers use an email address!" It isn't rocket science.

"Do You Want to Know a Secret?"
A lot of this problem stems from the fact that the descriptions of products on sites like Play.com, Amazon etc are so poor. Do you want to know the extent of the description of this guitar on Play.com? It is:

"John Lennon's signature Rickenbacker 325 wireless guitar controller for use with 'Rock Band: The Beatles'. Compatible with all Rock Band titles."

Nowhere does it say it requires batteries or doesn't work with the normal Xbox 360 pack. In fact, even though all the technical specs are available online elsewhere, they have not bothered to include them here.

This is a common problem - not telling the potential purchaser the information they need (or providing an easy way for them to find that information, e.g. an email address to send queries to). So with PC games on Play.com and elsewhere you don't what the required specs are and if the game requires an internet activation (for many people that is a vital piece of information, since they avoid those games). Exhibit A: Play.com sells a double pack with Bioshock in. Nowhere does it say that you have to 'activate' Bioshock, i.e. you can't play it without an Internet connection and having to deal with 'licences'. In fact, the only information Play.com gives is what amounts to a big 'fuck off':

"Note: We are unable to provide technical support for any PC software we supply. Please ensure that the game will run on your computer before ordering as we cannot be responsible for incompatibilities with your system"

Erm, how can you ensure the game will run on your system when the person selling it won't give you any information?

So basically customers often have no way of knowing from the seller whether they can buy something or not. NB The publisher site often lacks that info too, relying instead on Flash animations just to try and tempt you to buy it. And sometimes I have contacted publishers and not even had a reply to my query about DRM. Bethesda was a recent example when I asked about Oblivion.

We have gone back to the days where you have to go into a physical shop so you can look at the game box. Though even then shitty publishers that use online activation to penalize legitimate customers usually have a bit on the box saying you 'have to agree to the enclosed terms and conditions' - but you can only find out what they are after you buy and attempt to install the game! At which point it is too late to return the PC game to the shop... This is a patently stupid and unfair situation. We once reported it to Trading Standards, but they did nothing, saying it was just 'standard practice'. So much for protecting consumers.

Sites like Play.com should give the information consumers need to make informed decisions, and provide a simple means of asking further questions. Then they would make people's lives easier, sell more, and have fewer returns and dissatisfied customers.

"All Together Now"
Well, I decided to write a review of the guitar, to add the kind of information prospective purchasers should know about. The first barrier was that Play.com reviews don't let you use a pounds sign - duh! Almost 2010 and they can't use a basic ASCII character set?

However I got a shock when I checked the review after submitting it - the item now had 3 stars, but I had given it 1 star.

Play.com had changed the rating. Does their system automatically increase ratings in poor reviews, making it look like products are better than they are, dishonestly trying to increase sales? How else can you explain this?

NB 3 stars, 'average' - but I only gave 1 star.

Will they include my review anyway? It doesn't break any of their guidelines. We'll see.

I have contacted Play.com about these annoyances, we'll see what comes of it. For now I'll hold back and give them just 1 crap, but I am bordering on 2.

Update 30 December 09: Posted the guitar back - at a cost of £12.50! Yet more waste that could have been prevented if sites like Play.com allowed you to ask them questions about the products they sell, or simply gave more information in the first place.

Play.com's current score:

Read More

Uncreative

The error - it was impossible to install the driver (either from the CD that came with the soundcard, or from the latest drivers on the Creative site).

Last night I was extremely annoyed with Creative, makers of PC sound cards and other peripherals. I wasted many hours trying to fix a problem with my new Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme Gamer soundcard. The drivers just wouldn't install. I was even forced to close my anti-virus protection (since Sophos flagged up the Creative software as 'very suspicious' - which shows that Creative are trying to do something more nefarious than just provide a straightforward driver), but the driver still wouldn't install, as the screenshot above shows. All I got was additional unwanted software attempting to make me register my soundcard with Creative (i.e. hand over personal data).



I finally decided to try and get support. However the Creative website sends users in circles, and offers no means at all to contact anyone at Creative apart from an online form that will only send data if you enter serial numbers from somewhere on the card.

Yes, they do expect you to tell them the model number of their own hardware (even though I had given the name of the appropriate soundcard), and to open up your PC to get the serial number. It doesn't matter that you have already had a lot of your time wasted by problems with their products - if you don't act like a good little customer and do as you are told, you will get no help!

I have a new PC, under warranty, and don't want to be opening it up and removing soundcards to try and get a model/serial number. If anything went wrong my warranty would be invalidated.

This is simply adding extra obstacles to customers. Since this blog was created, it seems that one of the most common complaints is large companies making it difficult for customers to get in touch with them, usually by only having an online form that has mandatory fields (even if they are not relevant), instead of making it as simple as possible for people to get in touch, and clarifying any necessary information afterwards. This lack of any after-sales service, and lack of understanding of the customer's position, means that I would certainly warn people away from Creative as a company in future.

So I was left unable to get any help from Creative. I searched their 'Knowledgebase', but it had no relevant answers. After more hours of searching online fora and trying many things, including some of the many suggestions from Microsoft (e.g. I tried this and this to no avail) I eventually gave up, and did a full reinstall of Windows XP. So about five hours after I first had the problem with the Creative soundcard, I had fixed it myself. If only I could get those five hours of my life back...

Creative's current score:

Read More

Sony

A short complaint about Sony here.

On 10th December 09 I rang Sony to point out that their only online contact form wasn't working, and didn't seem to have been working for some time. If you go to their homepage to contact them, the most obvious link is 'Contact' at the bottom. Then you get to:

However if you click on that link to contact them online, you just see:

You would think that it would be treated as urgent, but when I checked again on Wed 16th December the link still didn't work. I rang Sony again, and told them. The person I spoke to did not seem particularly bothered about the broken contact link (though said she would report it). She then told me that there was a working form, but had to direct me through 5 more links to get to it, each one just one amongst many. Oh, and even then there are mandatory fields about the particular product you are contacting them about - which didn't apply at all in my case, such as 'Model Number'. And that form will not let you send anything without a model number. That is pretty crap. Worse - even if you make one up just to be able to contact them, the next screen forces you to give them your phone number, address, name etc whether you want to or not before they will receive your email - AND you have to create a password and account with them. Why not just have a simple form or email address, one click from their homepage, with none of this forced detail, forced account crap? It is as if Sony do all they can to deter you.

(Note - Why didn't I just deal with my original query on the phone? Because I already had a query written with relevant addresses and details, so it is much easier to send the details online than read them all out over the phone.)

I was then put on hold, a major irritation of mine, before being put through to another department, who said they would put me through to someone else, but explained that if I got no satisfaction from Sony I would need to ring an external company, and if they were no use to start again with Sony... No one answered so I left a message, and have heard nothing back yet.

I checked today, and the link from the contacts page still doesn't work. So despite it having been broken for some time, and reported at least twice, Sony couldn't be bothered to fix it. Crappy Customer Service there! So one crap for not fixing it or making it easy for customers to get in touch, and another for their general poor response.

Oh, another thing that pissed me off - getting through to someone at Sony on the phone meant going through 11 options on their automated phone system.

Update 28th December 09: Sony still haven't fixed their contact link, despite being told numerous times! I emailed them again today. They obviously don't like customers getting in touch.

Update 31st December 09: Wow! An automated email from Sony that doesn't in any way refer to the contents of my email to them! They are on the verge of moving up a crap level...

----- Original Message -----
From: Sony United Kingdom Limited
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:35 PM
Subject: [Incident: 091228-000110]

Thank you for your enquiry. Please find below, a summary of your request and our reply which we hope will be of help.

Summary of your enquiry:
Customer (NA NA)28/12/2009 04.43 PM

Auto-Response28/12/2009 04.43 PM
Thank you for filling out our enquiry form. If the suggested solutions below do not answer your question and you choose, or have chosen to submit your question, it will be allocated to one of our agents for reply.

In the meantime, we think that the following answers may help with your question:

Title: Walkman : How to connect a Walkman or iPod ® ( MP3 player ) to an in car system.
Link: http://sonycic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/sonycic.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=384&p_created=1219327445

Should you wish to update your enquiry, please click on the following link:

Question Reference #091228-000110
Product Level 1: Other
Category Level 1: Complaint
Date Created: 28/12/2009 04.43 PM
Last Updated: 30/12/2009 03.35 PM
Status: Completed
Model Number: prs505
Product Owner?: Not relevant

Sony's current score:

Read More

Toshiba Twistaround

Update: 25 Sept 09, Toshiba replied and included a link to a working WLAN driver, so the problem is fixed!

And now for an example of something that should be simple, being made incredibly difficult by a company.

After reinstalling Windows on a Toshiba laptop - a Toshiba Tecra S1 - I found that none of the drivers I'd downloaded from Toshiba's site worked for graphics and - more importantly - Ethernet. So I couldn't connect the laptop to the Internet. I therefore just want to ask Toshiba a simple question - what drivers do I need for this model, and where to do I download them from? The images below lead you through my experience. Click on the images to see larger versions.

1. I went to http://www.toshiba.co.uk/then clicked on 'Customer Support' on the left. The logical place to start?

2. It said "Customer Support -Thank you for your interest in Toshiba. Toshiba is divided into many diverse areas of enterprise and each company has its own separate contact information. Please select a search category from the menu on the left side of this page." Which left thirteen options.

3. I clicked on country, and selected the UK. That leads to the screen above - 25 companies, all with their own contacts... But which one is Toshiba support??? I clicked on the website for the top one, 'Computer Systems - Toshiba Information Systems (UK) Ltd', which took me to... www.toshiba.co.uk. Back at the start...

4. This time I clicked on 'Customer Support' on the left, then 'Computer Systems Service & Support'. Then I went through a narrowing down screen again.

5. Which led to this list of nine companies, all of them to do with repairs - which is no good when you just want to ask someone from Toshiba a question...

I then tried other options, by region etc, various drop down boxes - all of them led in circles back to the start, or to long lists of companies that didn't seem relevant. There was no simple 'support' button where you could get an email address or phone number for a UK contact, from any of these pages. Obviously Toshiba don't want to help their customers.

So they get a crap for the hassle caused, and a second crap because there was no-one to report this problem to either, and no way to complain, since their websites just keep going in circles. What a globalised mess that is.

Updates 17 September 09:

I needed to get my laptop working, so tried again, despite all the frustrations above. I must be a glutton for punishment.

After going through the hoops agaain, I found another error in Toshiba's website: their links for technical support weren't working. Enlarge the image below and you'll see why - they have hyperlinks to help and support, but HAVE ADDED A MAILTO: IN FRONT OF THEM! Mailto: is for email addresses, not hyperlinks, and stops links from working at all. It is rubbish that Toshiba can't do a hyperlink correctly. Anyone without the technical knowledge to spot this, copy the link, fix it, then paste it into their browser would not be able to get to a contact page. Once more, it is made almost impossible to get through to any help.
I thought I was on the home straight - surely it should be straightforward to get the correct driver when Toshiba knows the exact model of your laptop?

Product Type: Notebooks
Family: Tecra
Product series: Tecra S Series
Model: Tecra S1
Short Model Number: PT831E

Well, a brief reply eventually came, linked to list of drivers, but with no indication as to which one to use when alternatives were offered. Should I use the Atheros, Intel, or Realtek wireless network drivers? The user manual didn't answer that; not did the email from Toshiba. I spent a long time browsing round their loop of websites, and eventually found this. It says:

"If you do not know which Wireless LAN Adapter model is in your Notebook, please refer to the "How to identify the built-in Wireless LAN Adapter model" document from our Wireless LAN How-To Resources page."

Which would be great - but there was no document with that name or purpose at the link it gave - just three pages with every question EXCEPT that useful one. Grrrr.

In the end I tried every XP network driver from the page Toshiba sent; also every XP driver from their other page I had found. None worked - my Toshiba laptop still has no driver for the wireless network card, so is pretty useless. It just shows up in Device Manager as a yellow exclamation mark called 'Network Controller' under 'Other Devices'.

I went back to their email:

"If you require any further assistance, please contact Toshiba on the options below. To reply to this message please click: HERE Please quote your call reference number as we can track your enquiry and refer to any previous communication. Useful information and contact details are available at: http://www.computers.toshiba.co.uk/support/contact/"

I clicked 'HERE' but it was a dead link. As was the one for 'Useful information and contact details'. Enlarge the image below, which shows the problem once I realised that even Toshiba's links in their own emails didn't work.


Yes, the problem is that their links had broken redirects added. So instead of

http://computers.toshiba.co.uk/Toshiba/FormsV3.nsf/contactenquiry?OpenForm

they were linking to

https://owa.tiu.teda/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://computers.toshiba.co.uk/Toshiba/FormsV3.nsf/contactenquiry?OpenForm

which didn't work.

Once I worked that out, I stripped the junk out of the broken URLs in their email - and got the following screen.

Aaargh!

I decided I would just reply to the one help email I had received - but no, that would be too easy. The email begins with:

"Please do not reply to this email as any replies will not be responded to."

Could they be any more unhelpful?

So from needing to know the driver to get wireless network working on my laptop, and having eventually battled through to Toshiba, and told them the exact model of my laptop, all I had got was: broken links, huge numbers of drivers with no help in knowing which was correct, and none of which worked anyway; and no simple way to get back in touch with Toshiba. That is an extremely poor service. So far I have wasted c. 6 hours on all of this, almost a full day's pay lost.

For all those reasons Toshiba gains two craps. My time has been wasted and I have been left frustrated and with a useless Toshiba laptop due to problems with Toshiba Custoemr Services at every single turn. So their new score is:

Toshiba's current score:

Read More

Which? Awards 2009

We spotted that in the Which Awards 2009, the Co-operative Bank won 'Best Financial Service Provider'. We have now informed Which of the fact that the Co-operative Bank has misled customers about having ethical policies, and is adding extra barriers in the way of what should be a convenient service, as well as taking part in dubious negotiations with companies whose business it is to create electronic waste and which use repressive regimes in order to get cheaper labour. As a consumer watchdog Which should be aware of the darker side of one of their award winners.

Read More

Co-operative Bank update

Today we spoke to a Customer Assurance Manager at the Bank. He was able to give the Bank's perspective, which helped to fill in gaps in our knowledge and understand where the Bank is coming from. However it did not resolve what we feel are serious problems with the Bank's approach.

Security

• Many reports say that security is a concern for banks, and that they need to do something to battle online fraud.
• However in some cases it is the companies that sell these security device 'solutions' who are doing the research that creates panics and drives the agenda. For example, Xiring - who are selling these security devices to the Co-operative Bank - "issued its own findings having carried out a survey of UK online banking customers". Yes, there is fraud, but those who shout the loudest warnings are those who have a vested interest in these solutions, which introduces bias. Some of the statistics come from the Government too - but if Iraq told us anything, it is that reports and statistics from civil servants bear little relation to reality, and if a civil servant is pressed for 'evidence' they may turn to the convenient figures from the security companies who are pushing for technological fixes just as easily as an old student thesis that they can tart up and present as 'research'.
  
• But surely Banks can come up with better options than wasteful electronic devices? Are we being told that with all the knowledge banks have, of every single transaction that takes place, they can't work with legal authorities to catch fraudsters (organised crime or individuals)? If they wanted to crack crime, they could. For example, if certain banks in certain countries are islands for fraud, and the Government and banks there d nothing, it is possible (and preferable) to cut off all transactions with them.
• What other options are there? Cracking the crime is just one, albeit the best one for everyone. Other options include allowing opt-outs of the Card Reader scheme, perhaps with delays in transactions as a compensatory security measuere. Or maybe gradual use of existing biometrics. Banks can afford to investigate other options that we wouldn't even think of. And consider Paypal - a massive international financial organisation, and a world leader in convenience, yet they don't use cards and card readers. Other solutions are out there, but we won't get them by listening to companies that sell security products. They will just want to create markets for yet more electronic devices.
  
• In terms of security, if someone has your bank details, then even without a card reader they can use those details to transfer money just by using the phone banking service. However in the future the Co-operative Bank might make card readers a requirement for that too. And then if you are with the Co-operative Bank (or any bank using these systems) and want to transfer money, but you don't want to have excess electronics in your house (you know, if you are a model, responsible citizen and want to avoid supporting waste) then you would be stuffed: cut out of banking services, and disenfranchised.
• The Faster Payments Service has led to these increased security concerns in banks. So the banks offer the 'convenience' of transactions going through faster; in exchange for the inconvenience of having to take devices to work and on holiday in order to do banking, and the waste of extraneous, unnecessary devices. If people had known that would be the outcome, we suspect many customers would have preferred to stick to 'slow' transactions. Note that the Co-operative Bank opted to join this service by being part of Apacs, the Banking industry body. So all this Card Reader fiasco is partly the result of that decision by the bank. We have complained to Apacs.

Waste

• Electronics waste is a huge problem in society, and schemes that involve using these Card Readers make it far worse.
• The statistics on e-waste are staggering. A recent study revealed that producing a single PC creates 37kg of non-hazardous waste, 0.7kg of hazardous waste, and 193 kg of greenhouse gases. [JISC Inform, Spring 2009 issue, p11.]
  
• Even when electrical devices and batteries are 'recycled' properly there is still huge waste in transporting the devices, and toxic waste left over from the process, and collapsing markets because no-one manufactures from the end products of recycling (go into any supermarket - how many of the toilet rolls are 100% post-consumer waste recycled? Even in the Co-op's own supermarkets, of the many brands they have, only one would fall into this category). These devices are also made from toxic raw materials to begin with. So in the best case scenario there is lots of waste in recycling, and we are left with mountains of plastic and hazardous toxins; in the worst case scenario they go the way of so many things that get 'recycled' i.e. shipped to a third world country along with the money they so desperately need, then dumped, so that Western organisations can sign off their annual reports with how great they are for 'recycling' things.
• I was told today that the Co-operative Bank has it in their contract that Xiring will 'recycle' these devices: but contracts haven't prevented abuses of recycling elsewhere.
• We shouldn't get too focused on recycling. It is only the third option. Reduce, reuse, then recycle. So recycling is the poor third cousin, and we have to reduce the amount of goods we manufacture as a priority - these new devices go against that. Before they can be recycled, their manufacture uses more of the Earth's finite mineral resources - a demand for resources that is putting increasing pressure on exploiting remaining unspoilt areas (e.g. drilling for oil in Cardigan Bay; the US wanting to further exploit Alaska; wars with countries in the Middle East to secure oil). Yes, so far the Co-operative Bank have only bought a 'paltry' 300,000 Card Readers, probably only using a small island's-worth of resources; but bear in mind that they are only currently sending them to people who use Internet banking. Our point? "Currently, internet and phone payments make up 2% of all payments in the banking system". So what about the coming day when 20% of payments are online? Then 50%? 2% = 300,000; therefore 50% = 7,500,000 devices. Now can the Co-operative Bank claim that their system is sustainable?
  

China

• In our previous post we pointed out that these devices were manufactured in China. That is a concern for two reasons.
• Firstly, again and again we have seen sporting goods manufacturers benefiting from human rights abuses, which is inevitable when organisations are trying to maximise profit by going for the cheapest source of products, as is happening here with the Co-operative Bank. The Co-operative Bank told me that the company they get the devices from is meant to avoid abuses, but like the recycling issue, the abuses that have taken place in the past by other companies have also done so without the Western company claiming to be aware of the abuses. But the abuses go on, since companies manufacturing goods for the West are bound to say they are responsible (otherwise they won't get the contract).
  
• Secondly is the issue of distance. Resources are being transported around the world to China; then the manufactured goods are transported around the world again to the UK. Then distributed around the UK to customers. (Then, eventually, either binned or sent around the world again to be 'recycled'). We are talking about a massive carbon footprint. The Customer Assurance Manager admitted the obvious point - it is cheaper for the Co-operative Bank to get the devices from China than to manufacture them in the UK. The reasons it is cheaper are obvious - because workers there have less legal rights, no minimum wage, and less protection. It is a question of cost over ethics, and it is disappointing that the Co-operative Bank is willing to sideline the ethics. The Customer Assurance Manager admitted that if the Card Readers were manufactured in the UK the scheme would not be cost-effective. To CCS that sounds like the Card Reader scheme should be cancelled, if it can only exist by putting ethics in second place.
  

Other points

• CCS has concerns that the Card Reader scheme is setting a dangerous precedent. The average citizen is already treated like a criminal by big organisations - Microsoft force you to activate Windows; 2K make you activate your Bioshock game; media companies plaster their films with anti-piracy messages (and ironically, those who use illegal copies of Windows, Bioshock and films have a much smoother user experience with all of that removed). If hardware security schemes like the Co-operative Bank's are successful, how long will it be before we end up at the point where we not only have to activate everything and have separate accounts with every service, but we also have to use hardware dongles (familiar to anyone who played games in the 1980's - and they were hated with a vengeance back then too!) for every online service? Going on holiday would mean having to take a second suitcase of devices for online banking and eBay, to check your mortgage online, to alter broadband subscription details, to pay for mobile phone credits, to connect to Twitter... It is not a route we should go down.

The Co-operative Bank must have a get-out for if the Card Reader scheme fails. Maybe it will be too unpopular, or have technical problems, or the manufacturer will go bankrupt, or human rights abuses will be brought to light, or criminal gangs will hack the devices etc. Many things can go wrong. So what criteria would it take to trigger a rethink on the scheme?

Updates 23 August 09:

• We has contacted APACS on Wednesday, August 12, 2009, pointing out that the implications of their work on the Faster Payments Service are policies like this, which are harmful to the environment. They haven't bothered to reply.
• We had a 'Final Response' from the Co-operative Bank on 17th August. They have no plans to drop this scheme, despite all the points made earlier.
  
• So customers will no longer be able to do most of their online banking if they stick to their ethics and don't want to contribute to further waste.
  
• Customers will no longer be able to do most of their online banking if they want to avoid the inconvenience of having to carry devices around with them so that they can bank online from home, from work, from holidays, from the houses of friends and family etc...
  
• If the Co-operative Bank extend the scheme to phone banking in the future (which they said they may do), then anyone who does not want to use any of the devices will not be able to bank with the Co-operative Bank at all unless they have a nearby branch - but only a minority of customers have a branch nearby.
  
• So the end result of all these new policies is further waste of the Earth's resources, and inconvenience to customers. And that is their 'Final Response'.
  

Read More

Uncooperative Bank

Update: 9 August 09. The Co-operative Bank first received a latter about this on Tuesday, 26 May 2009. Since then they have received three more letters (including letters to David Anderson, the Bank's Chief Executive, and Dick Parkhouse, the Bank's Managing Director, both on Thursday, 16 July 2009). And they still have not replied, apart from acknowledgement letters. 46 days without responding - surely that is a record for poor customer service? It is an insult to their customers that the Bank care so little for their opinions.

Because the Bank has done nothing, we have gone ahead with promotion of this issue. We have now reached the point were a Google search for 'co-operative bank card readers' brings us up on the first page of results, and this site has been receiving a huge number of hits. We have also started sending details to media agencies who might want to cover the story. When will large organisations learn that it is in their best interests to listen to customers rather than frustrate them?

We asked a question

The Co-operative Bank has been talking about its new Chip and PIN Card Reader scheme, which forces people at home to use electronic, battery operated devices if they want to use the main online banking services.

Yet more unnecessary gadgets clutter the world...

To begin with the bank has bought 300,000 'Xiring Xi-Sign 4000 Home Chip and PIN authentication card readers' - representing a huge amount of unnecessary electronics and batteries. And that is just the beginning - after this trial they will be purchasing even more, in one of the biggest examples of corporate creation of electronic toxic waste seen in recent years.

Mounds of waste batteries from Europe - the Co-op's card readers are battery powered

The back of the new devices. Note that the devices are too hazardous to be included with normal waste (the 'no bin' symbol'). Also that they are made in China ('PRC' - 'People's Republic of China') - a country not known for being responsibile with regards to human rights. Where is the Co-operative Bank's ethical policy now?

The Co-operative Bank used to be lauded for its ethical policy - but a look at its website today showed that there were 65 links from the homepage, and not one of them was about them having an ethical policy. The thing the bank used to shout about seems to have become something they are sweeping aside as they grow, and this decision to create further markets for electronic devices with limited lifespans is perhaps the strongest sign yet that they have given up on really caring about the environment. At a time when society should be cutting back on non-vital electrical goods, and should be avoiding use of batteries altogether (for sound environmental reasons) it is irresponsible of the Bank to introduce a system that potentially involves the creation of millions of harmful electronic products with plans to keep using the system into the future. One could also ask what are the recycling issues involved - the recycling industry is already completely unable to cope with the amount of electrical waste we produce. There is nothing on the website about recycling the Card Readers or returning them.

So the bank gains their first crap for hypocrisy, in telling the customer one thing ('we care about the environment') whilst doing the opposite ('let's come up with a system that means yet more limited-lifespan, battery-operated electronic devices in every home!').

NB: The batteries are not even replaceable. The whole device has to be thrown away when they run out.

NB2: The scheme is a nonsense from a security point of view. If someone had sufficient details to login to your account online, they would be able to use phone banking to do exactly the same things, which shows how ill-thought out the whole scheme is, and what a dangerously false sense of security it gives.

The next way in which the bank earns a crap is that there was no consultation with Co-op Bank customers before committing them to this scheme. What happened to the bank's claims to treat customers as stakeholders? Forgotten, apparently. So as well as the fact that customers were not allowed to voice their environmental concerns, their legitimate usage concerns were also ignored. This seems to be a system designed to make online banking slower and less convenient - which is taking a step back to the 1990's. I mean, read this. All that hassle, cards and card readers and typing yet more digits into a device then into a web page... It is a nonsense. As their own email about the devices says:

Always ensure your Card Reader is safe and keep it within easy reach whenever you need to manage your Co-operative Bank account online.

Not exactly convenient, and hardly condusive to a modern world of ubiquitous connectivity using mobile devices. So even their most loyal customers are forced into a choice between supporting this kind of waste; having to use phone banking for bank transfers (which involves canned music and having to put up with the bank irresponsibly trying to encourage you to take out further loans at the end of every call); or switching Bank to one which is not so wasteful and arrogant. So another crap from the bank:

Next - the bank's decision to remove any option to opt out, and to ignore the customers' wishes about this.

Is it possible to choose to continue using all of online banking without using these wasteful devices?

No.

Is it possible to even choose not to receive a device if you have no intention of using it?

No. It gets sent to you automatically. The household of the CCS member who informed us of this had received THREE of the devices. How wasteful is that?

But surely if you write to the bank, you can choose not to receive one, and 'just' lose out on being able to have a smooth online banking experience?

No again. On the 26th May 09, a CCS member had written to The Co-operative Bank, and ended their letter with the very specific:

"That fact that the Bank will send these devices to people without asking them first if they want one is a wasteful and irresponsible policy. I absolutely do not want one sending to me."

Could that be any clearer? Surprise surprise, they got an email on 3rd July 09, saying "Your Card Reader will arrive in the next 10 days". And lo, the device turned up a few days after that. So even with 38 days' notice the bank still insisted on sending one out. So for giving customers no options, the bank receives another crap.

The final crap is for brushing the whole issue under the carpet. A CCS member wrote to the bank complaining about these issues on Tuesday, 26 May 2009. On 10 June 09 they got a reply saying the bank would look into it. Then they got another letter on 30 June 09, saying the bank was still looking into it. Then they received the device they had stated they did not want. The bank is obviously not taking the issue seriously, which sounds like Crappy Customer Service to us.

Who in the bank is responsible for this horrible system? What team came up with the daft ideas? The emails saying you will receive the device come from 'Sean Barton, eBusiness', so maybe the eBusiness team is the one which came up with this nonsense. Perhaps someone in that team has got shares in electronics and battery companies. It is a poor show.

The Co-operative Bank's current score:

As ever, CCS have been in touch with the The Co-operative Bank and will post any updates here.

We have started getting in touch with the news media to try and get them to pick up on this story. The next step after that would be contacting environmental and social justice charities and warning them about the issues above, so that they might want to consider banking elsewhere. If banks persist with bad plans then only by attacking their profits and their image can they be encouraged to see sense. Until this fiasco the Co-operative Bank had always been a good bank to work with, so it would be a shame to put people off them unless they continue with this ridiculous and wasteful scheme.

The growing problem of electronics waste

Electronics waste, coming soon to a pile near you

Read More

Nation Wideboys

Update: 8 July 09, Nationwide rang to resolve the query. Victory for CCS!

Smiling and helpful customer services? We think not. Read on to find out why.

Nationwide are under the spotlight this week. They have a reputation for poor customer service in a number of places online e.g. 'It pays to decide NOT Nationwide' and 'Nationwide Building Society equals poor customer service'. The details below have been passed on by the customer in question - we will pass any comments on to them.



Failing 1 - Customer Services no help over the phone
On 21st May 2009, at 7.30pm, a customer rang Customer Services to ask a straightforward question about their insurance policy. They were put on hold, and eventually hung up after a long wait with their question unanswered. (We are tempted to give an extra 'crap' symbol for the fact that being 'put on hold' and forced to pay to listen to dire music with the fear that you will be cut off or just left hanging is a major irritation, but we will be generous to Nationwide for now). Nationwide's Customer Services had all the details of the customer they had spoken to, and their query - but no one had the courtesy to ring the customer back once they did have an answer. Obviously the customer did not want to try that system again.



Failing 2 - The website offered no simple email or postal address
The customer then visited the Nationwide website to find an email address, but found that the only options offered were to either phone again, or to register for Internet Banking just so that they could send an email, which would be ridiculous. Nor did they want to go into town to their local branch just to ask this straightforward question. Nowhere was there an email address (their preferred form of communication) or a simple postal address, either of which would make customers’ lives easier. Obviously Nationwide does not intend to be helpful. When will companies learn that they should not put barriers (such as forced registration) in the way of their customers?



Failing 3 - An employee from Nationwide completely ignored their communication
In the end the customer filled in the online form on the site (22 May 09, 1.30pm) - knowing that at least someone would read their message then, and could forward it to the correct party or team. They explicitly stated that they did not want to register for online banking; they were unhappy with the phone service; and they wanted an answer in writing, since it was about insurance clauses. They asked for either the email address of someone in Nationwide who could deal with their query, or for the person reading the form output to forward their message to the appropriate person. The customer also explicitly stated how important this was to them. However whatever staff member read that obviously ignored it, since there was no reply or follow up. That may be the fault of the staff member, or of Nationwide’s deliberately unhelpful policies.


Failing 4 - Nationwide ignored a letter
In the end the customer wrote a formal letter to Member Services on 26th May 2009, hoping that at least a different person would receive it - surely a third member of Nationwide's Customer Services wouldn't ignore a customer? That would be more than just poor luck or accident, it would imply a level of contempt or ineptitude on Nationwide's part.

The customer pointed out that what should have been a simple query had wasted their time and left them annoyed. The letter pointed out that if their query was not dealt with this time, they would not only be switching company, but they would publicise the poor service they received online, and would also send personal letters of complaint to Geoffrey Howe (Chairman) and Robert Walther (Joint Deputy Chairman), explaining why Customer Services do not deserve to use that title.

Part of the letter sent to Nationwide

The result? Not even a reply. Nationwide appeared not to care about their customer or reputation.


Nationwide have been informed of their rating below, and we will post any updates here.

Nationwide's current score:

Read More

Royal Mail

Update: 7 July 09, Royal Mail refunded £10 of the £20 parcel they lost. CCS still counts this as a victory. Royal Mail said: "This payment is made without prejudice as an exceptional, one off, goodwill gesture." Victory for CCS!

Our first featured company is - Royal Mail!

We were made aware of the site 'Royal Mail ripoff' [since removed] by the person who set it up, and after some communication we have verified what they say so will be featuring Royal Mail here. They set up their site because they had attempted every other means of redress for their grievance with Royal Mail and got no satisfaction, which understandably left them frustrated and wanting to share their experience. We will hand over to them now, to explain things in their own words (the text in dark blue).

---------------------------------

Parcel lost...

See the image below (click to enlarge) - a parcel posted to my nephew on 8th December 2008.

He did not receive it when Royal Mail tried to deliver it because he and his family went away for Christmas. When they got back we tried to trace where the parcel was to get it redelivered.

We got nowhere with phonecalls to Royal Mail, so I emailed them on Sunday, January 11, 2009.

The same day I got an email back from DesignSignature@royalmail.com, saying:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your enquiry, which will be reviewed by one of our Customer Service Advisors.

We aim to respond to enquiries within 5 working days. Please note, if your enquiry is complex and further investigation is required it may take up to 10 working days to respond fully.

For enquiries relating to one of our financial products it may take up to 7 working days to respond fully.

Thank you for contacting Post Office Ltd.

Kind Regards,

Customer Services

So I waited. Until 18th January. I had still heard nothing so replied, saying:

I have still had no reply to this. There have been no updates, and I am very concerned that my parcel has still not been delivered. Surely it is straightforward to trace the parcel from the details I gave, to whichever office has it, then confirm they still have it and ask for it to be redelivered?

How naive I was!

I used the Royal Mail main contacts address a number of times trying to get a response. However I kept getting emails back telling me to claim for a lost item - but my query was for them to just track down where it was (possibly still nearby) and re-deliver it, not to claim. The long letter I had written to my nephew would not be replaceable.

A further annoyance is that Royal Mail uses ‘noreply’ email addresses - there is no way of getting back in touch with the person who emailed you with further details. That is ridiculous. It leaves the customer angry at having the only alternative of starting a whole new email or complaint, which will be seen by a different person - back to square one. Any decent company that cares about customer services assigns responsibility for a query to an individual member of staff, and would not use ‘do not reply’ addresses at all. It should be possible to reply with further information, and for that single member of staff to resolve the query then sign it off. The current Royal Mail system is like a bureaucratic nightmare of anonymous or automated responses with no chance to respond, and with black holes where communications disappear forever. I can understand why many people just give up rather than go through all this.

I tried ringing Royal Mail customer services, and it took minutes of irritating voice menus before I even got put into a queue, and I gave up waiting after five minutes of irritating music. Then I tried to get the phone number of a post office near my nephew to ring them, but the Post Office website only gives addresses and opening times, not phone numbers.

I emailed them again 23 January 2009, and again got a standard reply telling me to fill in a claims form. I wanted my parcel (in Royal Mail's possession) delivered, not to try and claim its cost back!

On Tuesday, 27 January 2009 I wrote a letter to the Customer Services Director’s Office, pointing out all these problems and saying that I did not want to claim for a missing parcel - all along I had made it clear I wanted someone in Royal Mail to contact the depot that had the parcel, then confirm they still have it and ask for it to be redelivered - which one would expect would be a straightforward task. If it had been done when I first contacted Royal Mail the parcel could have quickly been redelivered. However Royal Mail had failed to do anything about getting the parcel redelivered.

Further, if the parcel really had gone missing by that point due to Royal Mail failing to act on my communications, then it was ridiculous that on top of everything else Royal Mail would resort to pointless bureaucracy telling me to download and fill in more forms, when I had already given all the relevant information a number of times via email and the online form. That smacks of penalizing the victim of ineptitude. I had included in every single communication all the relevant details.

I wanted my parcel to be redelivered, as I did when I first contacted Royal Mail. Something that should have been extremely straightforward had turned into a massive waste of my time, and what started out as just a parcel needing redelivery had possibly become one that was missing completely.

The will drains away...

I received a reply dated 9 February 09 from Mike Griffiths, of Royal Mail Headquarters.

I was a bit irritated by one section:

So basically I shouldn't have used an email address Royal Mail were unaware of - so it was my fault! However as I have shown above, it was the address Royal Mail used to contact me, and didn't say anywhere not to reply to it. So Royal Mail has official addresses that their own staff don't know about!

The gist of the letter was to fill in a claim form and accept that they had lost my parcel.

By then I was so worn down I capitulated and filled it in with the details of what I had sent my nephew, which came to £20 (obviously not counting things such as the letter). I thought 'at least I can claim back the cost of the computer magazines and buy new ones for my nephew'. Yes, I had wasted lots of my time on Royal Mail customer services with letters, emails and phonecalls. Yes, they had lost my parcel. Yes, the letter was irreplaceable. Still, I would get refunded.

The last kick in the teeth

I received a letter dated 2nd March 09 from Gwen Barry, the Customer Service Adviser.

It was full of negatives:

I looked at the stamps. The parcel was gone, and I had wasted all that time for a few stamps. I should have just done what most people do and given up at the start rather than try to achieve any kind of satisfactory outcome from Royal Mail.

Royal Mail were basically saying they didn't believe me about the contents, therefore I was a liar. How on Earth would anyone prove what was in a parcel they sent three months ago? Are you meant to take photographs of everything you send 'just in case'? Are you meant to keep receipts for magazines bought months ago? Even if I had sent photographs of computer magazines, would they have believed they were from a date prior to posting the items, and weren't just new photographs in order to claim money? (I doubt it). Therefore there seems to be no reasonable way that you can receive compensation. And bear in mind that the compensation is being sought not for your own failure - but for Royal Mail's failure. It seems unfair that Royal Mail can decide the compensation for their own mistakes - they are bound to try and get out of it.

The six petty stamps were almost an insult - as if I would want to use Royal Mail again after all that hassle. "Here, try again, you might get lucky this time..."

Customer services failures

I should add here that I have encountered these failures in the past - between 11 February 2007 and 16 July 2008 I had to raise formal complaints with Postwatch (Ref:464042) a number of times because Royal Mail continued to post unsolicited junkmail through my door, despite the fact that I had registered not to receive it. Since then I have still had unaddressed junkmail delivered by Royal Mail on a few occasions (I have dated photographs as evidence). My other complaint was that Royal Mail ignored a number of communications on this issue. Nothing has changed there. Note that Royal Mail's policy is that everyone gets unsolicited junkmail from them by default, even though society should be reducing its use of resources, not pushing yet more through the door that inevitably ends up in landfill sites unless people go out of their way to recycle it. I suppose this is the kind of thing that can happen when a company has a monopoly, as Royal Mail does.

More communications

I also emailed Mike Griffiths, of Royal Mail Headquarters. He gave no email address so the email was sent via Royal Mail's general address, as follows:

----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: FAO Mike Griffiths, Royal Mail Headquarters, 5th Floor, 148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ, Ref 1-938685718

FAO Mike Griffiths, Royal Mail Headquarters, 5th Floor, 148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ

Your Ref 1-938685718

Dear Mike,

With reference to your letter dated 9 February 2009, I have been extremely unhappy with Royal Mail's actions. As a warning to others I have made my experiences available at http://www.cin.greenisp.org/royalmail/ and have started to register the site with search engines and social bookmarking services, and post its address on consumer fora.

If I had received a swift and satisfactory outcome from Royal Mail this would not have been necessary, but I have been left extremely frustrated.

On 29 March 2009 I finally got a reply to my email from Mike Griffiths (Assistant to Board Members, whatever that is) - so only 19 days later. However the reply just reiterated the fact that Royal Mail were going to do nothing except threaten me with legal action! If that happens then I shall certainly seek as much publicity as possible to show how the Royal Mail monopoly treats its customers. There is nothing on this site which is untrue.

Extract from the Royal Mail letter of 26 March 2009. NB the irony of hoping I will find it helpful to be told that it was tough that my parcel was lost, I wouldn't be refunded, but maybe Royal Mail will take legal action against me. Is it their standard practice to persecute victims?

They pointed out that they would not refund me because I 'did not provide evidence of value'. As stated below, I did include the cost of the magazines, but Royal Mail require 'evidence' and otherwise are unwilling to believe their customers, taking the default view that they are liars and cannot be trusted. However Mike Griffiths' letter again asked me for 'evidence' - are Royal Mail saying it should be standard practice for anyone posting things to take photographs of the contents? What a ridiculous system. Or maybe you should keep receipts for everything in case Royal Mail lose your parcel? Even then they could argue that the receipt doesn't prove that you sent that item. It is impossible to win against their unfair policies.

Recently I complained to two different companies about some failure in their service. Both of those responded quickly and resolved things to my satisfaction. Whereas Royal Mail lost my parcel, called me a liar by refusing to believe me about what I said was in it, then threatened me with legal action when I complained.

I have had a number of emails of support from the community out there, and since Royal Mail have had every chance to resolve things and refused to do so, I will be taking some of you up on your offers to publicise this further. Many thanks to those that have already linked to my site; now that Royal Mail are trying to silence me with threats of legal action let's see if we can take this further. Please keep the emails coming in, and mark them with whether you will allow me to include (anonymous or named) quotes on the site.

Alone? I think not.

Since Royal Mail did not resolve my query I have registered this site in many places and dug around for other people who have had poor service from Royal Mail. If Royal Mail had resolved my query originally it wouldn't have come to this. So, on to some other people who aren't happy, showing that Royal Mail don't just give me a headache and poor service! Please note - this is not comprehensive, or the page would go on forever! I will keep registering this site and those below until Royal Mail refund me for their incompetence and their refusal to believe their customers (thereby impugning that the customers are dishonest).

• Royal Mail annoying people around the UK with their litter dropping
• TimesOnline - Disenchanted companies desert Royal Mail
• The Mirror - Post service axed because of steep hill
• Royal Mail is rubbish
• Daily Mail - Anger over Royal Mail's junk mail warning
• Royal Mail junk opt-out 'a sham'
• Our Royal Mail service now is rubbish
• Royal Fail
• We Hate the Royal Mail!
• Urban Dictionary - Royal Mail
• Not best pleased with the Royal Mail
• Royal Mail parcel gone missing
  

---------------------------------

The author of all that set up their site to warn people about potential problems with Royal Mail, and the dangers of trying to seek redress for any problems. They also wrote to Consumer Direct and the Post Review Panel, who both work to protect consumers. To round it off, Royal Mail have been heavily criticised for their staff littering our streets with their red elastic bands. See this blog post from an environmental blog to find out more. That earns them another crap mark.



Feel free to post your comments on Royal Mail. We can also pass on messages to the person who originally had this prime example of poor customer service.

Royal Mail get 1 crap for losing the parcel; 1 for failing to resolve things; 1 for implying their customer was dishonest and refusing to believe that he had posted the items; and 1 for threatening legal action. With the one for the elastic bands above they have launched our blog with a 5-crap whiff! Way to go! And that is after we let them off for posting unsolicited junkwail! If they don't resolve things after that we will be forced to invent a new category specifically for Royal Mail.

Royal Mail have been informed that their poor treatment of this customer hasn't been brushed under the carpet, and we will report back later on whether they continue to ignore people who are victims of them losing post.

Royal Mail's current score:

Additional updates 25 September 09:

Thanks for the comments added below this post - it is a combination of heartening (at the agreement) and saddening (that people have to put up with this poor service).

I keep hearing of new problems. Recently a friend had a parcel held back by Royal Mail, even though it was within the correct size and weight for the postage applied. He paid it in order to get his parcel. However it happened again a week later with a different parcel! He got another card from Royal Mail saying that he had another parcel which hadn't got enough postage.

This time he went to the sorting office and questioned the postage, taking a ruler and scales with him. The lady behind the desk didn't understand why it had the sticker on and checked everything for him. She said that she couldn't sort it out there as it happens once it goes through one of the main sorting depots. So the parcel got sent back to be reposted - he will have to wait at least another week for the parcel. The danger is that by sending it back to the central sorting office Royal Mail might muck it up again and claim the postage is insufficient. Can my friend charge them £1 for his admin time in going back and forth?

The whole thing is a frustrating rigmarole. The modern experience is as follows:

• Nationally, Post Offices shut (most of the 14,000 we used to have in the UK are closed or slated for closure), so nowadays there are no local ones. Despite the environmental damage of increased travel, it is the reality that you will have to travel to one.
• So people travel and go to their nearest one a few miles away- and find huge queues and delays because all the small post offices have shut.
• On top of that Royal Mail changes the system so that posting things is much more complex - you now have to measure and weigh a parcel, AND check it is not too deep. The chances of mistakes increase. Especially if you measure things yourself, in order to avoid travelling miles in order to queue up.
• Royal Mail decide a parcel is a 100th of a gramme or millimetre over, so hold the parcel back until the person it is sent to is willing to pay for their parcel.
• That person then has to collect it from the depot and pay extra - but then they find out that Royal Mail has also shut many of the depots, and they now have to go to an out-of-town site to collect it (as happened in my area). Oh, and there are no bus services to that location...
• = Why we hate Royal Fail.
  

Read More