Crappy Customer Service (CCS)

Anonymous cold calling

2011-12-12T16:36:00.003Z

We have covered printed crap through your letter box in the past. What about all the obnoxious spam phone calls that you might get? Sometimes these are more than just a nuisance, for example the outright scam schemes targeting the elderly and computer-illiterate by telling them to pay to have viruses removed from their PCs. These calls are unaffected by whether you have registered with the toothless TPS or not. Here are some examples I received recently:

A woman who claimed to be 'Jessica' (she refused to give any other names). She insisted she was doing a 'British Survey', but refused to give company name or contact details, and eventually hung up when I kept insisting they be given.
Automated spam recorded message about an unclaimed refund on a payment protection policy.
Recorded voice claiming I was entitled to a prize.
A call from someone claiming to work for all the major gas electricity companies, offering some kind of refund. After asking again and again they finally said they were working for 'JANCKOH SOLUTIONS' and their name was 'JANG' and their phone number was 99928251 - they hung up at that point when I tried to clarify the phone number.

In each case I dialled 1471 afterwards but it said "We do not have the caller's number to return the call". It is annoying how easy it is for these spammers to remain anonymous and untroubled by any regulation. I contacted the TPS but they were as useless as I had expected - they will only do something if you have a legitimate company name and phone number. If the callers either
refuse to give these, or make them up (bear in mind that 1471 does not work on their calls) then the TPS will not do anything.

As well as the TPS, most phone companies would suggest other things you can do to deal with cold calling spammers below:

Many phone companies have a feature called 'anonymous call reject' – this service rejects any caller that withholds their number on dialling your line. However there is a monthly charge for this (c. £1.75 per month, charged by BT).
Another feature is 'choose to refuse' - a PIN dialling system that rejects the last number to call you. However this only works if you know the number dialling you and once again this can cost c. £1.75 per month.
You can change your phone number (at a cost of £15). It is possible that you might get another number that has been used and is on even more spam lists.
There is a 'Silent Guard Service' – this is another independent service that supposedly helps to limit cold calling and the number is 08443722325. However it seems slightly suspect.
You could perhaps install a device that shows the caller's number, and refuse to answer if the number is withheld. This may also need a paid service.
The final option is to go through the NCS (Nuisance Call Service). This is a service monitored by BT and the police that carry out call tracing and logging to discover who is calling you and will endeavour to stop the calls. This however is in the extreme and the charge levied by the NCS is £130 ex vat.
There is more advice here, from Ofcom.

The common feature is that the victims of cold calling and spamming are the ones who pay, thanks to the failure of BT, Ofcom and the TPS. Do you suffer from these plaguing cold calls too?

Potentially good news

2011-11-07T15:56:00.002Z

Junk mail is an irritating scourge in the modern world: wasteful of resources and time, demanding attention like an obnoxious child, and hiding the important post amongst a sea of glossy paper waste. Royal Mail have received a high crap score from us for their part in promoting it. Well, the good news is that a new initiative should make it easier to opt out in future.

"The average UK household receives more than 370 items of unsolicited paper mail a year, the majority of it unaddressed." Source

Sadly the Telephone Preference Service is still useless. It is funded by the companies which make money from spam calls, so was never going to be any use in combating them, was it? I receive spam calls every day, despite being registered with this service. I tried to complain to the TPS but they only act if you have the company name and their phone number. Since the spam callers I spoke to refused to give a real company name, and also it was impossible to get their phone number, it means that the TPS refuse to do anything. So when the situation occurs where you need someone to step in, they turn their backs on you! In their automated (and no-reply) response, they said:

"You may already be aware that TPS does not have the facilities to know which companies are calling you and therefore relies on the complainant to ascertain this information upon the receipt of an unsolicited direct marketing call."

Pretty crappy, TPS.

Pestering Banks

2011-11-06T16:36:00.003Z

Note the annoying nag screen - there is no
option to permanently disable it

When you use Internet Banking with the Co-operative Bank they now always make a popup box appear trying to persuade you to install extra software - see image above. Most people won't want to do that. Not only is it extra hassle (on top of the stupid and wasteful gadgets that many customers refuse to use on ethical grounds) but the Co-operative Bank state that they won't compensate you if the software damages your PC or data or causes problems.

However, even though most customers therefore won't want to install extra, unwanted software, the only option on the popup box is 'Remind Me Later'. Why isn't there an option for 'Don't tell me again, I'm not interested'? It is incredibly irritating to keep seeing reminders to do something you don't want to do, and never intend to. Who wants to be continually nagged by a large company? It doesn't show much respect for their customers.

When the bank was contacted they just said that they were not going to remove the message, they will continue to nag their customers to install unwanted software. Pretty crappy!

Oh, and there are many people who consider it to be dodgy software that is designed to be a pain up the arse to install - see the comments at the end of this post.

"Argos t'shops, and y'know wot 'appens?"

2011-08-17T16:15:00.007+01:00

The original Argos shop experience
Twice in June I went into my local Argos. Both times the item I wanted (in any colour, and even variant models) were out of stock. I assumed that those checks were monitored and that therefore new stock would come in for the in-demand items. Any sensible company would do that.

I made my way to Argos a third time two weeks later, assuming one of the two options would be in by then. I got to Argos around 3pm. They were still out of stock. Not wanting a wasted journey I looked at other options and found something I would accept as a close match to what I needed. I paid for it and was told to wait three minutes. I was number 648.

My number was called so I went to the desk but had to wait while others were served. It went past my number. Eventually I was told they couldn't find my item and were all looking, and someone should have told me sooner. The assistant asked if I could go and do something else and pop back later, but I had only gone into town for this one item and needed to go to an appointment. I was told other staff were looking. Awful music blared out of the speakers. The kind that makes you want to give up on life. Yes, the muzak was that much of an irritation.

I had wanted to be out by 3.30, but was still there. At 3.33 another member of staff looked at my receipt, apologised, and said they were still looking. The ticketing system reached number 667, 3.40 pm, and still nothing. An assistant said, "You're not in a hurry are you?" I replied that yes, I was. At 3.46 pm the manager said they still couldn't find it. They suspected they had given the item out by mistake at some point. I asked for a refund. I was asked for personal details such as a mobile number, postcode and house address: details that I refused to give. This was wasting even more time. I was told that I would not get my refund for 48 hours. I asked for some kind of credit note as an apology for Argos' mistake and my wasted time, and was told I couldn't have one. So not only had I wasted about an hour and a half if I included travel time, but Argos would be getting the interest on the false sale and I had extra paperwork in recording details and checking the bank account. It was almost 4pm when I left.

I was annoyed that Argos didn't get more stock in when a product was in demand; that I had such a long wait and my time was wasted; that the money was out of my account for two days when I didn't even receive anything. They turned a customer who was keen to buy into one who was irritated at the shop.

The complaint
When I got the chance I contacted Argos Customer Services to complain about Argos' stock mistakes and my wasted time. Unfortunately things got worse.

Firstly their 'email' option does not provide an email address - instead it makes you navigate a menu of options that often don't fit with what you want. This is one of the Bad Practices many companies adopt. Example - what if you want to ask about the availability of spare parts for the product, or how long the HDMI cable on a TV is, or how many Db a projector is rated at? Obviously you would select:

Question about a product I would like to buy

However the only options then are:

Stock for home delivery
Stock available in a store
Leather or fabric swatch request
Confirm the price of a product?

i.e. none of them are relevant.

Eventually I got to a form and typed in the details of my complaint, selected my local store, and clicked 'send email'. However I just got a screen saying:

"Sorry we couldn't find a match for your search. This may be due to our data, or because your search contained special characters not recognised by our search tool (such as " - the symbol for inch)."

The email was lost - clicking 'back' on the browser just went to a blank form again. Argh! It was as if Argos was trying to make things as difficult and irritating as possible for customers. Why not check store details BEFORE letting people type a message if it is going to be lost by their system?

I had to retype everything a second time. This time I entered the store code instead.

That data was lost too. The form clearly said: "Store Name or Number", and the details of the store in both cases were copied from their own site. What had started as irritation had now grown into feeling completely pissed off. Why put stupid checks that don't work on an enquiry form?

In the end I had to start a third time and not choose the option that it was about a store. That lost the details too. Luckily I had copied the data into a word processor this time, so I could paste some of it from there. After trying twice more, using different options and email forms on the site and getting the same results both times, it was obvious that their 'Email us' button was broken. I rang up their Customer Services to ask for a NORMAL EMAIL ADDRESS to send to, not a broken form, and after some time - and lots of questions - was given one.

Finally, I could email them.

The result
On 21st June they replied, with standard platitudes copied and pasted from their guide book - sorry for the inconvenience... we value our customers... etc They offered a £10 voucher as compensation. Fair enough. It was strange that it could take "up to 28 days" to arrive - surely they only had to print and post it, a week at the most?

On the 8th July I contacted them again, just to ask when it would arrive and why it was taking so long. I wanted to buy the item but use the voucher for it.

The same day I received a reply with the usual empty statements, and it ended with: "Your voucher will be with you within 28 days."

Uh? Had they reset the time?

July 26th I wrote back again:

It is now 34 days since I was told "The gift voucher should reach you within 28 days". Why does it take so long to post a single piece of paper?

On that day I was told: "Please allow 21 days to recieve this".

The voucher arrived at the end of July.

The kicker is that I bought the item I originally wanted, got it home, washed it, and the water seeped into cracks in the glaze and revealing what a poor quality product it was. The cracks didn't show up on a quick glance at the item in the shop. I can't face returning it for an exchange, it is too much... That is the last time I buy a bread bin!

Conclusion
So 1 crap for not checking stock properly; 1 crap for not having an email option or simple system; 1 crap for wasting time with broken online forms; and 1 crap for taking so long to send out a voucher.

Argos' current score:

HTC disappointment

2011-07-31T14:50:00.012+01:00

I really wanted to like HTC as a company. Their smartphones are attractive and promise so much. Sadly there are some flaws, and when you contact them you realise that their customer services are pretty useless. As ever, there will be evidence to back this up.

When contacting HTC
Some months ago I contacted HTC via their website.

HTC's Customer Services website. Two cardinal faults straight away. 1) No email address offered. 2) The form REQUIRES the serial number for a product - so if you want to contact HTC with a pre-purchase query you are stuffed.

I can't remember the exact query, but I was surprised to get a blank email in response. It was a 'noreply' address so I couldn't respond and tell them. 'Noreply' emails are the third big sin from any Customer Services department. I couldn't be bothered to go through the whole form process again so gave up and forgot about it.

Some time later I ran into other problems with my HTC Desire smartphone. In this case it was a problem with their 'HTC Sense' service. It was one of the reasons I bought the phone. The idea is that you create a HTC Sense account, and can then go on their website and track your phone if it is missing or stolen, put a message on the screen, download all the text messages and so on. Incredibly useful. Except it doesn't work. Even though I went through all the procedures the HTC Sense site still claimed that I hadn't activate the phone locator function on the phone (I had, along with other features that might have been required). However every time I visited the HTC Sense site all I saw was:

Device Finder was not disabled - it had a tick next to it, you liars!

It was like that for weeks. I could make my phone ring but that was all. The finder service was turned on on the phone and I had tried turning it on and off, enabling and disabling GPS etc. There are loads of complaints on various fora with exactly this problem so it seems to be a fundamental technical error on the HTC Sense site, something they have dishonestly promoted as a feature even though it does not work. For example see here, here, here, here, here, here ... and so on. Obviously a fundamental bodge on HTC's part.

I contacted them on 31 May 2011 asking about this. Then after an acknowledgement I got the reply below a couple of days later:

Yes, a completely blank email. No text hidden further down; not white text on a white background; nothing there when you copy and paste the contents into notepad or forward it. Just a blank line. I tried reading the email on the server - no text. I tried downloading it on another PC and email client - still blank. Neither PC or client had any kind of spam filtering, and nor is there any on the ISP end. HTC's Customer Services system really was sending blank messages.

From noreply addresses. So you couldn't email them back and say 'This is all I got, please try again or ring me on this number'. It is as if they are doing everything possible to fob people off. Which is the only way a company gets featured on this website...

I contacted them again the same day, pointing out that I had contacted Customer Services using their form twice, and in each case I had received a blank email in response. I pointed out that whatever system they were using for dealing with queries obviously has errors in sending at least some of the emails - yet since it is a 'noreply' address I had no way of responding to point out that the email was blank. I included a screenshot to show the problem. Then I specifically asked: "Please can someone email me from a normal address with the answer to my query, not the automated system. As you can imagine this is incredibly irritating." Surely that was clear?

Guess what? They ignored my request, used their automated system, and sent me a blank email.

Yes, I could try and do things over the phone, but a) that costs money, b) I hate the music that is played while you sit there for 20 minutes, c) sometimes when you ring companies no-one picks up at all, d) you have no record of what is said, e) you can't include screenshots for clarification, f) you have to read everything out when you already had it typed up, wasting further time.

Despite that I did ring HTC Customer Services on June 6th 2011. I pointed out that their system didn't work - their first response was to tell me to use it again. Then to tell me it must be a problem at my end, somehow my fault. Was I filtering their emails and marking them as spam? (No!) Then to say that they had not heard of this before, no-one had replied saying they got a blank email. "Perhaps that is because it is impossible to reply to your emails due to the use of a 'noreply' address; and therefore people just give up?" I pointed out. I asked if I could be emailed from a normal email address since their automated system was only sending blank content. "That is not our normal process," I was told. True - but the normal process was not working. I was told to wait while they spoke to someone else. I got put on hold. No-one came back. Eventually I hung up.

That's why I prefer to do business by email and avoid ringing companies...

No-one got back to me.

I used their form again on Tuesday June 7th, as follows:

"I have pointed out numerous times that your automated system is only sending blank emails. I have included screenshots. Some of the refs are:
11GBCW24ENA000535
11GBCW23ENA001840
11GBCW23ENA001138
I have also tried ringing you but even after a long phone call this has not been resolved.
Having a system that sends out blank emails and gives no way for a customer to reply is pretty poor. Please can someone contact me via a normal email so that I can reply and sort this out. I bought a HTC phone full of optimism, yet various things don't work as described."

Did someone reply via normal email as asked (again)? No. They used their broken system and I received another blank email on 9th June. Maybe my fourth blank email (possibly fifth, I may have missed one out of this account).

On June 10th I received an automated email asking for feedback on how well HTC had done:

"Subject: HTC Customer Service Excellence
Thank you for using HTC Customer Service. We want to make your next visit even better and would like your feedback. If you haven't already done so please help us improve by taking a quick survey on your experience using HTC Customer Service.
We are unable to receive replies to this email account. Please visit us at http://htc.com if you have any questions or need further assistance."

Was is a spiteful joke?

I filled in their damn form.

"After having used your online form multiple times and pointed out that the HTC replies were only sending BLANK EMAILS so I couldn't read them, still nothing has been done. I have tried this 6 times now (11GBCW24ENA001161 is the latest), same result from any PC I used. I wasted loads of time ringing your phone support and got no joy. The emails you sent out are NOREPLY so I can't even point out the problem without opening a new query. Even though I said I am not receiving the text from your automated system your staff still keep using it, knowing I can't see what they write. I have never come across such a stupid system and as I said last time I will be featuring it on my blogs. Any sensible company would have offered an email address I could use instead, since it is obvious your automated CSM system is faulty."

Then I got two more emails asking me to fill in their feedback form. Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!

To be fair, following those comments someone did ring me back. However they had not heard of this problem before and passed it on to their technical staff. I have heard nothing since.

Problems with HTC smartphones

Their Weather widget (which ties in with the clock app too) only includes some cities and towns. None of the ones anywhere near my home were options, so the only options were to choose somewhere a huge distance away where the weather would be different anyway; or leaving GPS on all the time, which drains the battery and has privacy issues to do with everything being tracked by Google via their 'Google Location Service'.
Some app icons disappear from time to time and get replaced with the default Android ones. The only fix I could find was to delete the app shortcuts and put new ones there, but that is fiddly and should be unnecessary.
There were problems with a number of other HTC widgets and apps, e.g. their 'Peep' app, which often failed to format things correctly. See here, here, and here. I had this problem with direct messages, where the top comments are just in black, not boxes, and have no pics.
You have to have a Google mail account to access many features, even just to download FREE apps from the Android Market. Even a Google Applications account is not enough. Also the phone is then tied to that account for good so if you later change accounts you have to wipe everything from the phone and start again. That is a huge disappointment but is mostly an issue with Google and Android as a whole. However there is no reason why HTC couldn't disable the feature whereby the phone is locked to one account without a hard reset.
HTC give very little information about the structure of files on their phones. Admittedly the mess is probably caused by Google, since they allow apps to choose their own locations. Install a PDF reader and two e-book readers and already you will find about 5 different folders and locations where content can be stored. It quickly becomes a mess. Where should you put Word docs, TXT files, pics, RTFs, PDFs etc? HTC could have done more to at least help new phone users understand where they should add files, and how to get and back up applications (.apk files) without having to do it all through Google's store.
HTC's phones are basically multifunction computers. Yet they provide no way of turning off the phone service altogether to avoid call interruptions, but letting you keep using it as a PC over wi-fi with sound. If you switch to flight mode you can't then browse the Internet.
HTC Sense: not only does it have problems finding phones even when they have the correct settings selected, but features such as being able to copy SMS messages off the phone don't work at all.
HTC Sync: this is the software HTC provides for synchronising your phone with content on your PC. Yet once it is installed there is no option not to have it run every time Windows starts. Since I only use it c. one in ten times that I start my PC it is irritating and unnecessary extra junk. I had to use a registry edit to stop it running automatically, yet that should be a basic option in any software.
Annoyingly there is a separate 'credentials password' for connecting to some services. HTC should have let you instead use your existing phone security options such as the screen lock swipe system. It is a pain having yet another password.

Conclusion
So what do HTC earn for all this?

1 crap for HTC offering features that don't work.
1 for general failures such as no email address to contact, silly requirements on contact forms, noreply addresses etc.
1 crap for using a faulty customer management system.
1 crap for repeatedly ignoring the customer even when they pointed out that they couldn't read the emails sent by the system, and requesting someone to send a normal email.

I have contacted them linking to this blog and looking forward to another blank email.

Update August 2nd 2011: Reply from HTC! And yes, they sent another blank email, even though I had included a link to this blog post showing them that their CMS does not send out working emails! Idiots. See pic below.

Mmm, nil points HTC.

Update August 13th 2011: They sent another automated email asking for how good their service had been. I spent time filling their form in, explaining where they had failed. Then when I submitted it I got the message below. Yes, I checked the serial number three times. It was correct. It is a good example of how irritating it is when companies use automated forms that require certain fields to contain data. As soon as their form breaks it means you can't do anything and all your time is wasted. What a shit company.

HTC's current score:

HM Revenue & Customs: communications hell

2011-05-10T15:27:00.007+01:00

I needed an answer from HM Revenue & Customs about a tax issue. If you make a mistake then they will hammer you so it is vital to get the correct answer.

"That shouldn't be a problem," I naively thought. "I'll email them with the relevant information and get a response. Quick and easy and no cost - and even better, you have a record of the response." Ha! You can't email them, it turns out. No, you have to ring them - and if, as in this case, you want to point them to a long URL and documents then get ready for a real pain up the arse.

So I rang. And battled with automated and long-winded, confusing menus. The first time I tried I sat there confused - was I an individual or self employed? Well, both actually, so which option do you pick? After battling through I was told there was no-one free. Good bye. End of call.

Grrr. I tried again another day. This time a huge wait, with horrible music, until I gave up. Only on an attempt weeks later did I get through to someone after waiting for 20 minutes.

The kicker was that in the end the answer I got was not even definite, and unlike email I have no record of it in case they ever come back to me about my paperwork. Argh!

This level of service is complete shit. It is a lottery as to whether you get any help - and you pay through the nose for it. No email option? Come on HMRC, this is 2011, not 1991.

So 1 crap for not having an email option. 1 crap for not answering the phone. 1 crap because the calls cost me about £10 to make and took well over 45 mins of time in total. And 1 crap for having no record of the outcome (which email would have provided).

Watch this video if you can put up with the monotony and horror of contacting HMRC.

HMRC's current score:

Bryncarnedd Cottages, Aberystwyth

2011-04-16T18:33:00.003+01:00

The view from the 'garden' - that is the 'launderette'

We definitely can't recommend Bryncarnedd Cottages, Aberystwyth.

We paid £380.00 for six nights at the end of March. However we were unhappy with a number of things and complained.

The view if you go for a walk - agricultural rubbish, rubble, decrepit caravans etc. More like a tip than the countryside.

Pricing
We made the booking in a hurry but in retrospect were overcharged. I had been told that it was £400 for a 7 nights and days, which is c. £57 a day. So for the 6 nights of my booking the charge should have been £347, not £380, i.e. I was overcharged by £33.

I've since been given wildly different prices by other people who have stayed there, and it has been suggested to me that is why no prices appear on the web site - it is impossible to check whether you have been overcharged or not then. Always beware of any site that refuses to show prices upfront.

The scruffy car park

Rubble and rubbish by the car park

Accommodation
There were a number of issues with the accommodation itself, each fairly minor in themselves but they add up and are not generally expected in cottages which are billed on the website as 'luxury'.

The freezer was not on when we arrived, and obviously had not been on because there was a sickening smell when it was opened. There was no obvious way of turning the freezer on, and combined with the awful smell we did not want to use it. This meant things were not convenient in terms of storing food.

The rear door was incredibly stiff and needed the wood shaving. However it was the door that was most convenient for the car so was used all week, putting up with the effort required to open and close it.

The vacuum cleaner was completely clogged up. Since there seemed to be an expectation that guests would use it before leaving we spent quite some time trying to unclog the hose, a messy job that still left the vacuum cleaner with poor suction.

Some of the lights did not work at all, including the large freestanding lamp in the living room.

There was a dock for an mp3 player which was broken.

The surrounding area was not as depicted on the website - there was agricultural rubbish, bits of pipe, piles of bricks etc. See the photographs throughout this page.

Those are the cottages, just past the piles of junk

Internet
The accommodation was meant to include wi-fi, but this was not working according to the instructions in the welcome booklet. Of the 6 days of the stay the Internet was unavailable for the first three, and was only set up on Wednesday PM following a number of phone calls. It was one of the features that my family had been looking forward to.

Click to enlarge - complimentary wi-fi

The worst was that the person who visited while I was out, and pointed to a different network connection (not listed in the welcome book) could obviously tell that my mother knew little about computers and he tried to con her. At first he asked for ten pounds as a 'callout fee'. Who ever heard of being charged to 'fix' things that you have already paid for and didn't work? She only had £5, launderette money, so he took that instead. As a result she could not get her clothes washed that day, and had to go into town for more change the next morning. I feel that this was completely out of order.

Bearing in mind the issues above we felt that we should be entitled to a partial refund and gave the owners (who also own a hotel in Aberystwyth, The Marine Hotel) giving them a chance to make reply and make up for the cited issues first. They refused a partial refund so we will warn others about this so-called 'luxury' experience.

Pictures sticking out of frames

Update: In their reply of 16th April, the manager said:

"other than you cannot agreed to this!? So, this is no reply for us to come to an agreement on, but there is no further agreement we can come to now with you having to upload this site, as if we agree on a refund we don’t accept guest to go behind our backs and do such comments on the property. And with regards to the pictures, most of them are misleading to guest as the ones that are shown on the site are ones away from the main complex! Once again, we are very sorry that you are feeling this way against Bryncarnedd Cottages."

No partial refund then! It never ceases to amaze me that companies would rather have bad publicity than give a partial refund when they have failed to live up to what they promised.

LoveFilm again

2011-02-27T16:16:00.001Z

LoveFilm post updated - see end section.

Royal Fail

2010-12-11T13:45:00.004Z

Royal Mail AGAIN! This time they have been incredibly unhelpful.

I ordered something online. Royal Mail won't let you know at what time they will be delivering items, so you have to take a day off work and stay in all day. I did this. I waited all morning. Then I had to go out for two minutes, just around the corner. I left a huge fluorescent note above the letter box, saying:

"Deliveries - I have popped out, just around the corner, and will be back in a couple of minutes, or ring me at 01970 617737 and I will be back in a few seconds."

I got back a few minutes later to fine a note through the door - they had taken the parcel back to the depot. WTF? My options were to collect it from the out of town office (I don't have a car and no buses go there), or to arrange for re-delivery on a different day, even though I would be in for the rest of the afternoon. So another day off work... That is a most unhelpful service. Couldn't they have rung, or waited a minute, or tried again on their way past the road later? Or given an option for same day re-delivery? Or the phone number of the delivery driver so you could speak to him?

Normally these things can be overlooked, but bear in mind the Royal Mail junkmail problem. I went through Royal Mail's procedures to opt out - junkmail still came. I did it again. Junkmail still came. I complained. I got bounced back messages saying to go through the procedure. I complained to others. I got nowhere. I still get junkmail delivered by Royal Mail, who seem to be given impunity by so called watchdogs and the Government to make money from waste and junkmail.

Philips - putting barriers in place

2010-09-12T15:45:00.022+01:00

Past experiences with Philips
In March 2009 I had the misfortune of trying to use Philips' Customer Services department. A product bought from them had failed (surround-sound speakers) and was within the Philips warranty period. They made it difficult to contact them, sent me round various departments, had contact forms which did not work, did nothing when I contacted them (so I had to keep getting in touch every nine days to complain again). In the end it took two months and a huge amount of effort on my part before they would honour the warranty. Even then I was unhappy with them - we should all be concerned about waste of the Earth's resources. Yet when I asked Philips about getting the speakers repaired, even if I had to pay, I was told that Philips no longer repair faulty products - that it is cheaper to buy new. However environmentally it is a disgrace - if a product breaks after a year Philips expect you to throw it away and buy more, even if the fault is something that is easy to fix. Electrical goods have some of the most damaging manufacturing processes and include many toxic substances; recycling can not deal with the sheer amount of goods that Western society produces then discards. Any decent manufacturer would have the ingenuity and inclination to design their products to be easily (and cheaply) repairable, and would either have their own repair scheme or would enable repairs to be made by small local companies. Philips are a big let-down here, and I am very disappointed. On top of the fact that it took two months before it was resolved, during which time I had no sound from my PC, limiting its creative uses massively.

Current experience: Philips projector breaks
So has Philips improved at all? Sadly, no.

Around 20th August my Philips Bsure XG2 home cinema projector stopped working. It has always been looked after with great care - the only time it is moved is to perform recommended maintenance such as cleaning the dust filter. When it refused to turn on my assumption was that the bulb needed replacing, so I ordered another one on 27th August, at a cost of almost £200 (yes, accessories for some Philips products are that expensive).

The bulb came and was put into the projector, only to discover that the same fault remained (noisy fan, no picture, temperature warning light). Therefore it was clear that it was a problem with the projector itself.

That shouldn't have been a problem in an ideal world. It should be possible to contact Philips Customer Support, discuss the problem, and get an estimate of where the problem might lie and if it is fixable. If so to then arrange for a paid repair at the nearest Philips repair centre, and just keep the bulb as a spare. However, if for some reason it is not repairable, then the bulb needed returning to the seller as soon as possible for a refund - otherwise I would be left with a £200 bulb and no equipment to use it in. It should be clear that a timely response from Philips would be necessary...

First I tried to find details of my nearest Philips repair centre on their website. However their website had no such information - it just seemed to be designed to persuade people to buy Philips products, and the required support information was not there. I had to use a form on the site to contact them (there was no email address) - the form was extremely dodgy and took six attempts (tried in different browsers and sessions) before it finally sent the details off. The other times it just crashed.

Confirmation of my first contact with Philips, 1st September

Then next day I got an email back off Philips, saying that Philips Customer Support can't deal with a straightforward support issue for a Philips Product - instead to ring a phone number and speak to staff in another Philips department. They did not take ownership of the query or pass it on.

I rang that number immediately (2nd September). The Philips staff at the other end said they could not give me contact details for their repair centres, but would pass my details on to it. I explained the urgency - how I just needed to speak to someone to get an idea of whether it was a fixable problem since if not I needed to return the projector bulb or risk being £200 out of pocket (in top of the money that would have been wasted in buying a Philips projector).

After that: nothing.

On 8th September I rang again, rather angry at the waste of time and hassle that I was going through. I was told that the support centre would be contacted again and asked to get back to me urgently, and that I would get a copy of the email.

I did not receive an email. No one contacted me.

On 9th September I rang again. (I should add that the support phone number obviously goes to a non-UK support centre). By now there had been over 30 minutes of phonecalls and waiting - the calls were recorded. This was when it became clear that Philips do not even have a UK repair centre for this product! I was shocked that they only keep a repair centre open in Austria; nor will they advise on anywhere in the UK where the projector could be repaired. (Bear in mind that this was not a cheap product - the projector cost over £1,500 to purchase, so this level of aftercare and support is rubbish).

Now it is the 12th September. I have been unable to watch films or use the Xbox that is connected to the projector for over 20 days. Philips have made it hard to contact them, then ignored me when I eventually spoke to someone. There is currently no prospect of getting the projector fixed in the UK (if at all), and I could be left with a £200 useless bulb on top of that since it is too late to return it.

Next steps?
I will give them another day or two and give a preliminary crap rating - which is likely to be high based on the runaround I have been given.

If they don't resolve this quickly I will also post up the details of the speakers problem too (I have all the screenshots and emails showing how poorly they treat their customers) and will rate them on both experiences. They could then join Royal Mail as the company to get crap-rated TWICE - quite an achievement.

Update 17 September 2010: Despite the original queries by email and phone, and new email of 12th September (which informed them of this website), no-one in Philips replied. There were no unaccounted-for missed calls, and no emails from them. I rang them again today for another ten minute phone call (five of which were spent on hold). I was told (again) that someone would get back to me.

Update 26 September 2010: It has now been over a month since the projector broke. Philips have still not spoken to me about the problem and given an estimate of time and cost to fix, so for all that time I have been unable to use the living room as a home cinema and entertainment room, since there is nothing to connect my Xbox to. Central Philips Customer Services have ignored my most recent email of 12th September about how unhappy I am and why (it included a link to this blog post), so they obviously don't care what customers think once they have got their money.

I have received a phonecall once on 21st September from the staff Philips directed me to, apologising for the delays, but not from the projector repair team who I urgently needed to speak to (over a month ago...) It is increasingly looking like Philips are just hoping to ignore me, leaving me with no option but to try and get the projector recycled (oh, just noticed, Philips don't recycle them either) and waste all those resources, time and £1,700. That looks like the sum of the 'Philips experience'. The irony is that their stupid slogan is: "Our Mission: Improve the quality of people’s lives through timely introduction of meaningful innovations". It should be: "Worsen people’s lives through faulty products and our refusal to make it easy to get them repaired."

I have just sent another email to Philips. What do you do when Customer Services fail you? Go above them. However the Philips website is high on gloss, low on utility. For example you can find out who is on the Board of Management or Group Management Committee but there is no way of contacting them to point out the failings of one of their core departments, and the inevitable bad publicity that will arise from it. I very much doubt that Philips will be helpful enough to provide any details though.

Update 30 September 2010: Thanks to everyone who has emailed details of problems you have had with Philips, or said you will avoid Philips products in future. Your support means a lot! I contacted some 3rd party, UK-based repair centres and they replied within a day with clear guidelines on costs and timescales for repair, some of which even offered to arrange for collection of the projector. The contrast in experience by trying to go down the 'official' route is rather sharp.

Update 3 October 2010: Along with the other emails backing me up I received a long and detailed axample of someone else's experiences which were very similar to mine. I have decided to post the text in its entirety, since the sender went to such effort to record every transaction. Many thanks! I hope you get somewhere with your repair, I can only recommend trying a third party company and never buying from Philips again.

"My Philips projector broke too so I thought I’d contact them to see if it could be fixed. That my first mistake. I should have just gone to an independent repair company. My second mistake was assuming that ‘customer care’ meant anything to Philips. My third mistake was to assume that because a customer care line had stated office hours, that there would be anyone there during those hours to answer the calls.

Here’s the sorry tale of trying to get an answer to a simple question from Philips.

Tue 14th September. I use their website to send an online enquiry (note – no direct email address available from Philips) regarding my projector. As I couldn’t find projectors listed within their general categories I choose ‘home entertainment’ as the nearest match. I get an automated reply back, which clearly isn’t based on the information I submitted as they’ve put “Dear Mr. / Mrs. [surname]”. I am neither a Mr or a Mrs, and chose another title from the options. Why haven’t they used it? Maybe a minor point, but it didn’t start me off in a good mood.

Thur 15th September. I got an email from “Luke, Philips Customer Care” saying “Unfortunately, this department does not handle queries regarding Projector products. Please contact the following number to speak to the Philips Projector Department 02079490069.”

Hmm, I thought. Why can’t they just pass on the email? Surely it’s not that difficult to transfer an enquiry? And what were the office hours of this phone number? Also, why should I have to ring them, when I’ve already made the enquiry by email, AND, ticked that I wanted to be communicated with by email? And, it’s not a free-phone number.

A little disgruntled I went back onto the Philips website to see if I could find more info about the projector team. Didn’t find anything, but, a pop-up box asked me if I wanted to try online chat with a member of Philips to answer my question, so I did. That didn’t help in any way as the person was unable to explain why the email enquiry could not be simply emailed from the home entertainment team to the projector team. The person I was chatting with, Frank, seemed to have a poor grasp of grammar and spelling, and was not particularly helpful eg
[from live chat:]

“Visitor: Not sure why Philips is putting the onus on the customer to do the running round, phoning a number, even if it is a national land line. The support pages do offer the option of using email to contact customer services, so I did. Now I have to phone.

Frank: yo have to undesrtand that email service will not be able to solve all queries, especially the more technical ones that would require a hands on trouble shooting.”

So I gave up on that route too. I thought I’d try submitting a basic enquiry about Philips repair centres via the online form again, selecting the generic contact, not a particular department. I tried THREE TIMES and each time the request was rejected to ‘Bad request.’ So I gave up on this.

I thought I’d try ringing the projector team then. No hours for this team had been provided in the email from Luke from Customer Care and so I rang at 19:45pm, but it transpires this was outside their office hours which are “M- F 8am-7pm and Saturdays 9-5.”.NB – this is very important later on.

So I decided to ring the main customer care number given in Luke’s email:
“Our Customer Care Centre can be contacted on Tel: 08003316015 Monday to Friday 8:30am till 8:00pm and Saturdays 9:00am till 6:00pm.” NB it’s important for later on to know that this is stated in the email signature as ‘Customer Care Centre’.

I spoke to a female (who’s name I didn’t catch). She didn’t know who Luke was, she was on reception and could not answer my question as to whether Philips had any UK repair centres. She explained that the Philips projector people are a separate team. I explained I can’t ring during those office hours. She said I’d have to go back online then. But the online form won’t work!!! Wasn’t hugely impressed with this level of customer care. Why didn’t she offer to pass on my query, or take my number and get someone to call me? As a last resort I hit ‘reply’ to Luke’s email to ask some questions. I never got a reply.

As I work till 6pm most nights and have various evening classes and other commitments on most nights of the week it was going to be difficult for me to ring the Projector team in the evenings, so I thought I’d try Saturday. What a fool!

Sat 18th September
Rang the Projector customer number at 11am. Note, this is WITHIN their stated open hours. What happens? An automated voice says: “Our offices are currently closed. Our opening hours are M- F 8am-7pm and Saturdays 9-5.”
Now, I’m not sure which clock and calendar they are using, but generally, in the UK, 11am on a Saturday morning generally falls into the 9am-5pm hours.

To say I was pretty cross would be an understatement!

So, I decided to ring the original customer care number to see if they could put me though, or explain why the team wasn’t there.

Derek answered. He could not help me as he explained the projector team is an EXTERNAL company that Philips contract to provide the service. His suggestion? Just keep trying. Yep, that’s right, I should keep ringing a UK landline number, at my expense of time and effort. Gee, that’s really good customer care. He claimed they only have this one telephone number for this company.

With other things to do with my time on a Saturday I gave up for a few days.

Thursday 23rd September
Got home early so that I could ring the projector team in their office hours. I rang at 18:25pm. But guess what? Yes, I got the same “our offices are currently closed” message. I began to think I was in a different time zone. I double checked my watch. I double checked the calendar. I was pretty sure that 18:25pm was within the office hours of up to 7pm. Fuming by this point I decided to ring the Philips Customer Care number again. I got through to a female (didn’t catch name) who said she’d try the number for me. She put me on hold then I got redirected to the number that is not answering! So I had to ring the main Philips number AGAIN! This was really getting beyond a joke.

I asked to speak to a senior customer services manager. Was told “I understand where you are coming from but there is nothing I can do”. Why not? Apparently this Customer Care number given on Luke’s email to me (the original reply from Philips) is actually a Technical Support customer care number for the home entertainment section, NOT a generic Philips customer care number. This was NOT stated AT ALL in the email signature, or in the email address of Luke [a generic Philip’s email]. The female said she would put me through to the main Philips switchboard. So she did. And guess what? Yes, it was closed!! Their hours are 8.30am-5:30pm.

To rub salt in the wound I then got an unwanted unsolicited item of junk email from Philips, despite having ticked the ‘do not add me to the newsletter’ box when filling in the online form. Not impressed.

Fri 24th September
I decided to give it one final attempt. I had tried Saturdays, evenings, now I would try a morning. I arrange to get to work a bit late and stayed at home to make the call to the projector team at 08:30am. I got through! I was speechless for a few seconds.

Apparently they do have the facility to arrange repair, they take details of the projector and the fault and then get back to customer by tel, email or fax. I left my email and said this was my preferred method of communication as I was not at home during the day, and do not have a mobile (yes, that is true!) and also left my telephone landline.

I also raised the issue of the out of hours phone message being on when it’s during their stated office hours. She was not aware of this and said she would look into it.

Wed 29th Sept.
Not received a reply. No phone messages. I thought I’d ring again – it was 18:13. Yep, you’ve guessed it. The automated message “Our offices are currently closed. Our opening hours are M- F 8am-7pm and Saturdays 9-5pm”. You couldn’t make it up! So after being told their line is closed when they’re meant to be open, they haven’t done anything about it. Which leads me to conclude that either they couldn’t be bothered to fix it, or, they deliberately turn the message on early so that they can work shorter hours.

Saturday 2nd October.
Still no phone call or email from them.

So, after a total of 1 online form request, 3 failed online requests, 1 online chat and over 10 phone calls I have got absolutely nowhere.

Just typing this up from my notes has taken an hour of my time. My next steps are to find an address for head office and write to the chief exec – in my experience that’s the only way to get rubbish service dealt with. Great that your blog exists because these companies don’t care a damn about their customers until it gets in the public domain."

Update 9 October 2010: Someone at Philips rang me on Tuesday 5th October, and said they were looking into the repair options and would get back to me that day or the next. They did not ring back at all. So all I know is that Philips no longer repair their own top-of-the-range equipment, which makes a mockery of the principle that you should buy the best in order to be guaranteed a quality service. Apparently they direct people to independent repair centres in the Netherlands or Austria! However the Philips member of staff was not even sure of that. So yet another weekend with no films or Xbox. Thanks Philips. It has been around 40 days since I have been able to do either of those things, and no resolution is in sight.

Update 17 October 2010: Still nothing from Philips until I contacted them again. They said they would get back to me, and had spoken to staff in Holland this time about getting the projector repaired. Despite two requests, Philips refused to provide contact details for anyone on the Board of Management or Group Management Committee so that I could inform them of the problems I was having. It appears to be an attempt to cover up the poor service. I have now requested the details from Companies House which will apparently include a financial cost. I also received an update on 14th October from the other person trying to get a projector repair.

"Tonight I rang the number Philips gave me for projector repairs. It was an automated message saying "Our offices are currently closed”. It was 6:32pm - their message said they would be open until 7pm... So, I rang the general Philips switchboard, saying I wanted the name, tel number and email of Senior Customer Services Manager. I was left on hold for 5 mins.

The next day I got the email below - it makes no grammatical sense in many places, and note that there is no reply email address to respond to them.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Call #
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:38:28 +0200
From: do_not_reply@philips.com
Reply-To: do_not_reply@philips.com

PHILIPS

We were contacted by another customers' service of our company regarding your case.
The reason was that you can't get with us on the phone.
I tried to call you but there was no reply.
I checked your case and the service center should have received your request.
If you have any further question you can always contact us.

Kind regards"

Update 18 October 2010: Brian Desmond from Philips rang to say their repair agents are Teleplan. Teleplan had changed their email addresses so Philips automated emails to them weren't getting through. I would be contacted by Teleplan.

Update 8 November 2010: the projector came back. Philips covered the cost. I was told by Teleplan that one should not use bulbs from dodgy companies (not that the bulb was in any way related to the problem in this case). The twist is that the bulb was sold to me by Teleplan a couple of years ago...

Philips' current score:
They get a crap for refusing to provide contact details for anyone on the Board of Management or Group Management Committee, preventing anyone from going above Customer Services when the CS department is clearly failing. Another crap for failures to reply, and one for dragging this out for so long. A crap for no longer repairing their own top-of-the-range equipment, and having such a low consideration of the environment and the need to make everything repairable. Another crap for their website - no details of my nearest Philips repair centre on their website, no details of how to contact senior staff - it is just designed to persuade people to buy Philips products. They get a deduction of 1 crap for not charging for a repair when they got round to it three months later (though at first they did try to charge almost £100).

Royal Mail - mountains of junk through your letterbox

2010-09-09T16:38:00.029+01:00

Royal Mail - again. In a saga that goes back a long way...

Junkmail
The Mailing Preference Service (MPS) is supposed to help you prevent all the wasteful junk that comes through your door. Except it is a bit rubbish, because it is run by the junkmail industry, i.e. the people sending you the unwanted rubbish in the first place. That is why they use an 'opt-out' system so that you have to go out of your way to stop receiving junkmail, rather than 'opt-in' whereby you would get no junkmail unless you asked for it, and would save mountains of paper overnight. The MPS still try and put you off opting-out first, and even then it only lasts a limited period and they do not inform you when the registration runs out. Just to show how utterly crap they are, they ignore companies who address junkmail to 'The Occupier' - their advice in those cases is "If you are receiving mailings addressed to the occupier or homeowner you must contact the company who sent the mailing directly and ask to be removed from their delivery lists" - my emphasis. Right, so you should spend your time writing to unscrupulous junkmail companies, giving them your confirmed contact details? As if that won't just increase the amount of unsolicited crap that comes through your door?

The final twist - Royal Mail run their own junkmail system and ignore whether or not you have registered with the Mailing Preference Service not to receive unsolicited junkmail. Instead they force you to register separately with them if you don't want piles of wasted paper and advertising pushing through your letterbox into your home. See the pattern here, that by making all this difficult for the homeowner they hope people will allow them to keep making money by shoving crap through your letterbox. [Note - the fact that you can even opt-out is hidden on the Royal Mail site in order to discourage you from using it. Expect a link on the first page? No chance. Even the link 'Marketing Services' - the obvious place to go to opt out of them - is a red herring, leading instead to a page that tries to persuade companies to send even more junkmail.]

Trying to stop the junkmail, 2006
I digress. Back in November 2006 I went through the process for 'opting out' of junkmail put through my door by Royal Mail. I was sick of having to sort and recycle all this rubbish, removing non-recyclable things like staples and envelope windows and enclosed pens or cards.

The email from Royal Mail first made a big effort to try and persuade you not to opt-out. Then it told you it would take up to six weeks (even though they only have to pass on your details to the local delivery office, which takes five minutes unless you are grossly inefficient). I filled in the form and returned it. I heard nothing. I emailed them November 16th 2006. Nothing. I emailed them again on November 20th 2006 asking for confirmation. Nothing. Again on December 8th 2006, saying that I was still getting unsolicited (and un-addressed) junk mail posted by Royal Mail. Nothing. Then again on January 15th 2007 saying that unless they replied I would make a complaint. No reply. At the end of January 2007 I complained to Postwatch, pointing out that Royal Mail were refusing to reply, and I was STILL getting unaddressed junk mail. Royal Mail hadn't removed my address from their junk database even though I have asked them to do so many times. I asked why I should have to go to all that trouble to stop getting something I didn't want in the first place? Junk mail is a curse, and a waste of resources. I also complained that Royal Mail stated: "It is not possible for us to separate advertising material and information that you may want, such as leaflets from Central and Local Government and other public bodies. Opting out from Royal Mail Door to Door stops all unaddressed items." Which? magazine had reported that Royal Mail were lying about this, and you will still get important Government material. Postwatch refused to do anything (email of Feb 1st 2007) - because Royal Mail had not been given enough opportunity to respond...

I gave up for some time, incredibly frustrated.

More than a year later...
The unsolicited junkmail delivered by Royal Mail piled up. I decided to try again. I emailed Royal Mail on December 22nd 2007 asking them to exclude my address from their junkmail scheme. No reply. I tried again on April 11th 2008, pointing out all the communications over the years that they had not replied to, all the times I had registered to 'opt out' and that I was still having advertising junk put through my letterbox with the regular post. I also complained that they used an 'opt-out' system which - even if it wasn't a complete failure - unfairly puts the onus on the person who never asked for environmentally-damaging and wasteful junkmail in the first place.

Guess what? No response.

I went back to Postwatch. On 16th April 2008 Postwatch's Consumer Services Officer took my case to Royal Mail. I was very pleased to have them on my side. In their letter to Royal Mail they said:

1. Please offer a sincere apology for the service failure and the inconvenience and stress caused to this person.
2. Please contact your Door-to Door department and explain why the Opt Out service is failing despite the paperwork being completed on several occasions?
3. Please investigate and explain why this customer does not receive a response to his emails.
4. Please ensure the Opt Out service is set up immediately without another form being needed to ensure no further inconvenience is caused to the customer.
5. What assurances can Royal Mail offer that the customer can rely on delivery of this unwanted advertising material to stop?

Royal Mail were quick enough to respond when it wasn't just a little customer. In Postwatch's summary of 29th April 2008 they said:

"Royal Mail has confirmed that the opt out instruction has been in place since 18 January 2008, but unfortunately, the failures you have experienced have been due to human error. This has been compounded by the fact that the delivery frames were changed and the instructions were not clearly displayed. This has now been rectified and the area Door to Door Manager has been notified of the failure. I am hopeful these steps taken will result in an immediate and sustained improvement to your service and you will receive no more unwanted mail."

Postwatch can't be faulted there. The interesting point is that even with the opt-out scheme in place I was still receiving junkmail posted by Royal Mail at the same time as delivering my letters. But surely now I wouldn't get any more?

Yeah, right.

I continued to get leaflets pushed through with my post. It was not possible to get back in touch with the Royal Mail staff who had finally responded to my query - I asked Postwatch for the contact details to save time but they said (in an email of June 9th 2008):

"Unfortunately, I cannot give you contact details for any of the staff mentioned in Royal Mail's response as the department we deal with is non-customer facing."

A surprisingly apt (if unintentional) choice of words there. Without a direct contact in Royal Mail my only option was escalating things to Postwatch! I sent them photos of the junkmail I had still been receiving, all delivered with my normal post.

On 26th June 2008 Postwatch wrote to Royal Mail again, asking them to:

1. Please investigate this matter fully and advise why the latest failure occurred despite Royal Mail’s previous assurances.
2. Please interview the Delivery Officer responsible for the failures and inform Postwatch of their comments.
3. What guarantees can Royal Mail offer that matters of this nature are taken seriously and the customer will not receive material of this nature in future?

Postwatch forwarded me the reply they received on 16th July 2008, and Postwatch's Consumer Services Officer added:

"I am glad that Royal Mail have apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused by this matter and have again reported the failure to the Delivery Office Manager. The reserve Delivery Officer who made the mistake has been interviewed and the whole Delivery Team has been briefed to ensure they are aware of your decision to Opt Out of Door to Door deliveries. Furthermore, the Special Instruction Card has also been highlighted to alert all staff to this escalated complaint. Royal Mail are confident that you will not receive any more direct/advertising mail. I appreciate that Royal Mail have offered these assurances previously, however, I hope that the improvement is immediate and sustained as a result of this complaint."

The last bit rang warning bells.

I just want to add something here. All along I was annoyed at the Royal Mail policy of making money by adding to the junkmail we receive. The decisions to do this, and to make opting out almost impossible are taken by management idiots at the highest levels of Royal Mail. I'm sure that the postal workers who sort and deliver mail are under huge pressures to do their jobs. I never wanted them to get told off or to have to deal with more complicated systems. I just wanted to stop getting junkmail, and it is obvious that current Royal Mail system does not enable you to do that.

Did it work? Did I stop getting junkmail?

Since I first tried to opt out in 2006 I have continued to receive junkmail. I took to taking photos of some of it, in case I ever felt like 'opting out' again and wanted to show what I had received. I have interspersed a selection of the images throughout this post and below to show that I continue to receive it four years later. I should add - avoid ever using any of the following crappy companies who pay Royal Mail to deliver their crappy junkmail. It is their fault that ridiculous undirected marketing systems like this continue to thrive.

What is needed?

The current system is hidden and ineffective and is a hassle, so something needs to change so we don't remain prisoners of endless junkmail. The amount of time and paper wasted nationally with unsolicited junkmail is irresponsible, and Royal Mail and the MPS should not be putting the onus on the person receiving unwanted junk to do something. One of the following systems would make it easier for people to avoid mountains of wasteful junk.

If you register with the Mailing Preference Service not to get junkmail then the request should automatically go on to Royal Mail and they should act on it. After 5 years the MPS could write and tell you it will expire, and give an option to extend it for another 5 years via post, email, web or phone.
The opt-out system is obviously flawed. An even better option is that Royal Mail (and the MPS) should switch to an opt-in system i.e. if you want junkmail you request it. Then everybody is happy.
The final option would be that once every two years Royal Mail would put a freepost card through every door saying that if you want to opt out of junkmail you can tick it and put your address on and post it back. Even better, the MPS would have access to the database and act on it too. Then no-one who doesn't want junk would get it, for the cost of one recyclable (and recycled-material) card as opposed to the bags of junkmail at present.

We have written to Royal Mail, the Mailing Preference Service and Postwatch about this issue, asking what they intend to do. We will award our usual 'crap scores' later, and then take the issue on to MPs and Government Ministers if we are not satisfied.

Update 16 September 2010: After seven days Royal Mail finally replied - with a standard cut and pasted response about something other than the issues we raised. How do I know it was a cut and paste job? It is identical text to emails received over a year ago. What absolute crap. Royal Mail's Customer Services don't even read and respond to your letters! Amazing levels of contempt for customers on display there. Even worse, you have no way of getting back in touch to follow up a response: the email just points you back to their website. So you can start again and get ignored all over again. CCS has emailed them again asking for the contact details of a manager, since this system of theirs is worse than hopeless. It is not clear how anyone could trust Royal Mail with a letter (or anything communications related) if this is their standard level of ineptitude. In our email we said:

"I contacted Royal Mail through this form and received a reply that completely ignored my points and instead sent me a standard response to an obviously common query, but not at all what I had asked. Please send me the email address of one of the Customer Services MANAGERS so that I can take my query up with someone more senior. I am sick of having my time wasted in this way i.e. having my email ignored then being told to start all over again and fill in another form."

Update 26 September 2010: Yesterday (after another nine days) someone at Royal Mail said they agreed that my query had not been answered and they would get back to me.

It has been 17 days since I contacted the Mailing Preference Service. They have chosen not to respond at all, as expected, presumably because they are run by the people who want you to get unsolicited junkmail. I sent them a final email today saying that I can only assume MPS don't care about the frustration their policies cause.

9 days ago ConsumerFocus got in touch and said they would reply shortly. Nothing has been heard from them since that email either. A reminder was sent today, but shouldn't be necessary.

Update 1 October 2010: Yesterday the MPS finally replied. It was no surprise that the email simply stated the current situation, pointed out that it was possible to 'reduce the unwanted mailing' by going out of your way to regularly register with various schemes, and ending by saying "a large proportion of people welcome the information and special offers they receive by post". It is no surprise that the MPS won't change the current system when it attempts to legitimise unsolicited junk mail. After all, the MPS is run by the Direct Marketing Association - the association which makes money from sending junkmail. It is like asking criminals to manage prisons - absolute nonsense.

Consumer Focus also replied the same day, but their email likewise read as an attempt to justify the status quo. The email said:

"There are several types of direct mail: named and addressed, addressed only, and unaddressed, and one scheme cannot cover all types."

Untrue - a system could be created to cover all types. It is just that the junkmail industry would resist any such move.

As to the suggestion that the industry switches to an opt-in system, Consumer Focus commented:

"If an opt-in system were to be implemented (at great cost, and it is not clear who would bear this) there is likely to be a sharp drop in the amount of direct mail being sent"

Yes, there would be a drop in unsolicited junkmail - that is the whole point! It would be a very effective way of stopping it. As to who would pay for the system: that would be the junkmail senders, such as the Direct Marketing Association, as is the case now. If they refused to foot the bill for their own industry then the Government could just ban unsolicited junkmail outright (hey, that's a good idea actually!)

The email included outright factual errors. E.g. Consumer Focus said:

"Registration with the Mailing Preference Service lasts for five years, and when your registration expires the MPS will send you a new opt-out form."

Wrong. The MPS FAQ here clearly states:

"After 5 years you will need to re-register with the service. Please note, that MPS will not notify you of this"

The final piece of dodgy information in the email was:

"it is estimated that 95% of paper used in direct marketing comes from recycled or managed resources"

Estimated by who? The junkmail senders? Anyway, 'managed' means nothing at all. Even a forest where most of the trees are just cut down is 'managed'. 'Recycled' is also meaningless alone, since the term is abused by the paper industry to sometimes include virgin pulp. Only 'post-consumer waste' recycled paper is environmentally acceptable. I receive a lot of junkmail, despite registering for all the opt-out schemes. All of it is on pristine white paper, often with plastic cards, windows and pens, and none of it labelled as recycled (let alone 'post-consumer waste' recycled paper). To make spurious claims about the junk coming through our letterboxes makes it seem as if Consumer Focus is more in the pocket of the junkmail industry than on the side of the consumer. Disappointing.

Update 9 October 2010: On 2nd October Mike Griffiths, Royal Mail Customer Service Advisor, replied by email. So it took about 23 days to get a reply. Unfortunately the reply was just a justification of their current policy - inevitable when they make money out of their junkmail scheme. (This is why it is stupid that the administration of policy is in the hands of the people who benefit from the current state of affairs: Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association. Nothing can change when there is corruption at this level.) Let us look at some of Mike's comments.

"the policy for it to last two years is a decision made on the basis that people do move house. "

People move house every two years? I think not. The MPS register you for 5 years - why can't Royal Mail do the same, so that it simplifies things for people?

"At the end of the two year period we would need to receive a signature from the resident confirming that they are still the householder and that they still wish to opt-out from receiving unaddressed mail."

This is disingenuous. It implies Royal Mail have some process whereby you can sign a bit of paper and extend the opt-out. You cannot. You have to go through the whole process again.

"I should explain that this is not a Royal Mail Policy, but a decision made by our Marketing Department based on various research"

What is that supposed to mean? If it is acted on then it is Royal Mail policy, regardless of which department created it. And in the first quote he said it was Royal Mail policy. Royal Mail seem to be just plain confused here.

"Finally, we do not currently notify occupiers of an address that their opt-out instructions are about to expire. ... we have no plans to change this practice"

But that was the thing I was complaining about! Repeating what I wrote in my email is no kind of answer.

"Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken me to reply and if I can help you with anything else, please let me know quoting reference number 1-1576220081. Regards Mike Griffiths Customer Service Advisor"

The twist here: no contact details for Mike were included, and the top of the email said:

"PLEASE DO NOT USE REPLY BUTTON AS YOUR MAIL WILL BE DISCARDED"

So there is no way to get back to him apart from starting the whole process again and going through the offputting barrier of the Royal Mail online form, due to their policy of not using email properly (i.e. that big button in email software that says 'reply'). Their form is definitely a barrier - you have to go through various irrelevant options, then select 'Report a fault' even if you just want to send a comment. And you are forced to select a 'title' even if you don't use them because they are an outdated sexist and elitist way of distinguishing between people.

The final kicker is that I had registered to opt-out AGAIN on Monday 6th September, yet am still receiving unaddressed junkmail for Royal Mail. They receive the request, and all they have to do is email it to the nearest delivery office. It should take an hour or two at the most. Not 33 days and counting!!! Proof of how shit their system is (if more were needed).

So we got nowhere with Royal Mail, the DMA, or ConsumerFocus. All just attempted to justify existing practice. Next we are contacting our MEPs and MP to see what they can do about this de facto junkmail quango. In the interests of fairness we have attempted to inform the quango of our next steps and why we are dissatisfied with the Royal Mail junkmail system, communication systems, and the fact that the opt-out system is a failure.

Update 23 October 2010: Only one of the MEPs did (John Bufton, UKIP) but he just said they didn't have any faith in politics: "If your MP's are unwilling to help, I can assure you, that it is probably because our national government is powerless to do anything about it. MEP's are just as powerless as they only vote on certain legislation, and due to the fact that we only have 78 MEP's, Britain always gets out voted. So much for elected representatives." The MEPs Kay Swinburne (Conservative), Derek Vaughan (Labour) and Jill Evans (Plaid Cymru) did not reply at all. So much for elected representatives.

[Addendum: On 1st November 2010 one of Jill Evan's staff replied, saying:

"On the opting out front I recommend stayprivate.org as a way to cut your own personal junk mail (and cold calling). It's a simpler and longer lasting way of engaging with MPS. It's a service set up by CF Labs to make the process of opting out easier."

They also pointed to this site as being potentially useful. No answer to the long term problems of junkmail though.]

[Addendum: On 16th November 2010 Kay Swinburne replied, as follows. Here is a shortcut to the link mentioned.

She also forwarded a further letter on 21 February 2011, though it was a copy-protected PDF so had to be printed and scanned to make it available below.

[Addendum: On 30th November 2010 Mark Williams MP replied, as follows:

"I share your opinions on junk mail. It is a waste of money, time and most importantly, resources. It is disappointing that the Mail Preference Service, The Royal Mail and ConsumerFocus have not been able to offer an effective service to stop such wasteful actions.

I have sent a letter to Edward Davey the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who leads on Postal Affairs to ask whom to contact over the issue, and what the Government are doing to address this matter. I have attached a copy of this letter and will forward you the response as soon as I receive it.]

[Addendum: On 29th December 2010 Mark Williams MP forwarded a reply from Edward Davey MP at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Unfortunately BIS' reply suggested contacting the Mailing Preference Service; registering for the Royal Mail Door to Door Service; and contacting the Direct Marketing Association. As this blog shows, I have done all of those things to no avail. The current system is a failure. The letter ends with : "There are no plans to regulate unsolicited mail". BIS obviously don't want to make themselves unpopular with the marketers so things are unlikely to change.]

Update 24 October 2010: Still getting unaddressed junkmail being delivered by the postman, despite having registered to opt out with Royal Mail.

Junkmail like this is delivered by Royal Mail most days - despite having registered to stop receiving it almost two months ago.

Their whole process is stupid and offputting. When you eventually find their web pages it says:

"If you wish to opt out of receiving Door to Door mail items, please send or email your name and address to the address below [...] or email: optout@royalmail.com.

We will then send an opt-out form to your address, which you must sign and return. We do this for security reasons - to verify that those resident at the address have requested the ‘opt out’. "

In this day and age of online communication it is ridiculous that they require a printed form to be returned. A printed form is no more 'proof' of identity than an email. It is just another way for Royal Mail to put you off.

"Once you’ve returned this form, Royal Mail will stop delivering unaddressed items to your address within 6 weeks. "

As we said above, how long should it reasonably take for them to send notice to your local delivery office? 24 hours? 36? But not 6 WEEKS. That is just taking the piss.

Despite going through this process I am still getting unaddressed junkmail from Royal Mail after almost 8 weeks. I have contacted Royal Mail and heard nothing. I got no reply to my two emails to optout@royalmail.com querying this. So the whole system is a joke anyway. This is the same experience the whole blog post started with - even when you 'opt out' you still receive the unaddressed junkmail from Royal Mail - they are incapable of running a user-friendly system.

Note that the automated emails from Royal Mail when you contact them actually say:

"If you still wish to proceed with this, you will need to submit your request in writing to the Door to Door team, at the address below, or email them at optout@royalmail.com. They will then notify your local Delivery Office of your request."

That clearly states that you can opt out via email - but when you try it they refuse, and claim that it is not possible. Is it any wonder the system is a mess?

Update 11 November 2010: Royal Mail are still delivering junkmail nine weeks after I registered not to recieve it. Query emails to optout@royalmail.com have received no response; using the main Royal Mail website contact form only leads to automated messages directing to optout@royalmail.com. The system is a mess. How can I take this forward when no Royal Mail contact details are given apart from those two, and they just send you in circles?

On October 24th I contacted Consumerfocus again, pointing out the above. I also complained that "that Royal Mail only leave their system in place for two years, and do not inform you and give you a chance to renew at the end of it. MPS registrations runs for 5 years, which is more acceptable. It would be simpler for consumers if both systems ran for 5 years. Is ConsumerFocus doing anything to rationalise these two systems for the benefit of the consumer?"

and pointed out that Royal Mail's optout emails say "If you still wish to proceed with this, you will need to submit your request in writing to the Door to Door team, at the address below, or email them at optout@royalmail.com. They will then notify your local Delivery Office of your request." That clearly states that you can opt out via email - but when you try it they refuse, and claim that it is not possible. I asked if ConsumerFocus force Royal Mail to enable opt-out by email or online form as they offer in that email, since it would be a huge benefit for consumers.

ConsumerFocus have not replied. They obviously don't give a toss about consumers.

Game download services

2010-05-14T19:53:00.039+01:00

The idea of being able to easily download PC games is a great one. There are potentially environmental benefits (no physical products to ship around the world); in an ideal world savings from not needing to make and ship physical products would be passed on to the consumer; and it can be quicker to get hold of a game in some cases.

There are a number of game download companies, all competing for customers. Once someone joins a service then - if they are happy with it - it is likely that they will stick with it for all their gaming needs. It should therefore be important to companies to offer the best possible service to the customer, with the fewest barriers - to put the needs of the customer first.

So what are the best online services to use? CCS is going to look at the major players: Good Old Games (GOG); GamersGate; Steam; Direct2Drive; and Get Games. Update 11 June 2010: We have added Impulse. (Later we may include new ones such as Desura). Issues we are concerned about:

What DRM restrictions they use, or that they allow publishers to put onto their games - don't forget, if the download service doesn't want to allow certain restrictive practices it doesn't have to. The more restrictive the DRM, the worse the situation for customers (the worst being Ubisoft's new ridiculous DRM scheme that forces players to be online even for single player games, so no-one playing those games on your laptop while travelling...). Specific questions here:
Is there a limit on how many times a purchased game can be activated? (This automatically earns one 'crap' rating, since the consumer is paying a purchase price for a rental service. Some people don't mind asking for permission to install a game they have bought; CCS find that to be a ridiculous idea.).
Is there DRM from the publisher AND the platform itself? (Overkill).
Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? (I.e. could you still play the game in the future even if the download service or publisher disappeared?)
How much information they give in order that their customers can make informed decisions. Can a customer exclude games with extra DRM from results lists? Can they find out what the DRM is and what the implications are, such as limited activations (and if so, how many?) Can they search for DRM-free games? It is annoying if a download service allows restrictive DRM, but at least if customers can clearly identify the games it applies to and avoid them then they can still use the service with confidence for some purchases.
How easy it is to contact them. Do they have an email address? Are you forced to create an account just to ask a question? We have a huge number of accounts and logins and passwords already, so having to create an account just to ask a question is an example of putting unnecessary barriers in the way. Are we mad in thinking that many people might have a question about a product or service before they buy? So why force them to create yet more accounts just in order to find out if they want to create an account?

Then we'll see if they are crap or worth using. We should state that we would love to be able to recommend and use all the services. Greater choice is to everyone's benefit. We want to spend money on these sites, in exchange for great games!

Good Old Games (GOG)
This is one of those nice sites to review - everything about it is superb.

Native DRM: There is NO DRM on ANY GOG game! You can install them on any PC and re-download them whenever you want, as many times as you need, and you can install and play them on any PC without an Internet connection. You can't get any simpler or more user friendly than that.

Additional publisher DRM: See above. There is NO DRM on ANY GOG game!

Are there activation limits? No! See above. There is NO DRM on ANY GOG game!

Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? Yes. So your games are safe forever.

Can you contact them easily? Yes. Click contact us, fill in a form. No need for registration; no barriers in place. They obviously care about their customers.

Other: The site oozes quality. Games have extras available on purchase (such as soundtracks). There are in-depth reviews, screenshots, often videos. There is no need for special software to be installed: the games can be downloaded through the browser, but there is the option of a special downloader if you want it.

Conclusion so far: There is absolutely nothing to fault in the GOG service. If you are browsing for interesting games then we would recommend starting there.

PS If you like GOG, have a look at DotEmu.

GOG's current score:

GamersGate

Native DRM: Games have to go online during installation to activate them (so you can't install the game if your Internet connection is down or if you want to play it on a PC without an Internet connection; and if GamersGate ever disappears as a service then you will never be able to install any of your games again). Not ideal.

Additional publisher DRM: Also GamersGate allows publishers to add EXTRA DRM on top of this. So games bought from them may include limited activations (these can be extended a few times but not indefinitely - so after a few uninstalls to make space, a new PC, and the occasional reinstall of Windows, you may be unable to install the games).

Are there activation limits? Update 30 May 2010: A GamersGate Customer Support Manager on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 said: "ALL DRM used on GG got 3 time activation limit"

Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? No. So there is no future-proof solution for if GamersGate ever disappears.

Can you find out about the DRM? Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to find out if there are limitations such as finite activations (and if so, how many) or online-only requirements (such as Ubisoft's ultra-draconian DRM systems) before purchase. Some games list the type of DRM, but that tells you little. For example, Batman Arkham Asylum says 'Securom' - but that might mean limited activations - or it might not. Trackmania United has no mention of DRM at all. Necrovision has 'other', which tells you nothing. The Penumbra Collection is listed as DRM free - but that is not true, since in that case the GamersGate DRM still applies - they just mean that there is no DRM above and beyond that, so it is still misleading. It is possible to go the 'ALL' tab and choose DRM-free in the Filter. However it is a bit of a con, because all GG games require online activation, which is a form of DRM. So anyone wanting to avoid limited activations will not be able to do so through the GamersGate interface.

October 2010 - game says to see below for DRM information...

...however there IS NO DRM information!

Can you contact them easily? Yes. They offer an email address (for anyone), or a form (if you have an account). They also allow customers to contact them via Twitter and Facebook. So full flexibility there.

Other: The company obviously have problems with punctuation - there should be an apostrophe in their name. They use a client-free download system, just using your browser - that is a bonus.

October 2010: GamersGate also has regional restrictions, made worse by the fact that it shows you games that you cannot buy. After clicking on Black Mirror on the UK site above...

...you see this.

Conclusion so far: The lack of information on restrictions makes the service impossible to use if you want to avoid two levels of restrictive DRM.

Update 30 May 2010: We were sent details of some GamersGate correspondence from someone who reads CCS. In an email sent by a GamersGate Customer Support Manager on Wednesday, May 05, 2010, the Manager said:

"ALL DRM used on GG got 3 time activation limit...well, with one exeption, but remember that we do reset the count if you send us en email. [...] Resetting the count is the best we can do and only within reason. 10-15 times would never be considered 'within reason'."

There we have it - when you buy a game with limited activations you will not be able to install it indefinitely. You will have to go through the hassle of asking for more unlocks (i.e. asking for permission to install the game you have bought!) until they eventually refuse. As the customer who received that email told us:

"I love games. If a game is good I will play it again and again. Some of my favourite games (System Shock 2, Thief, Deus Ex, Heroes of Might and Magic 2, Aliens vs Predator original etc) have been installed many times over the years - sometimes reinstalled because of a new PC, or reinstalling the OS, or because a mod wouldn't uninstall properly, or just to play it again after uninstalling it to save space. System Shock 2 has probably been installed 10-15 times, so you can see why I would never want to be stuck with a game with limited activations! I simply want to find a service where any games I buy will still be available to me in ten years. GamersGate said the publishers would regard that as excessive if I had bought the game from them, and they would have refused to keep activating it."

Update 1 June 2010: We have relented slightly after various polite emails from GamersGate, and removed the crap score they had been awarded for refusing to respond. CCS is nothing if not fair, and we actually want to find and promote good services. So their current score is now 3 instead of 4 craps: one crap for having multiple forms of DRM, sometimes on the same game; one crap for having limited activations on some games; and one crap for not enabling customers to easily find out how the games they want to buy have been hobbled. GamersGate could easily reduce their crap score further by: 1. Making sure every game listed the forms of DRM on it, including what that type means and whether there were limited actviations (and if so how many). 2. Make all of that a search criteria. 3. Allow publishers to choose between online activation or DRM-free but not limit the number of times a customer can install their game. (At least then you would have access to your games as long as GamersGate existed). 4. Saying that all games could only use one form of DRM, their own. Each step would improve things; if step 4 was achieved then they would get the same score as GOG. I.e. zero crap!

GamersGate's current score:

Steam

Native DRM: There is no obvious information about DRM on the Steam site, which is already a warning sign. However it seems to be the case that you have to install a Steam client and be online to activate a game. Therefore, as with GamersGate, you can't install the game if your Internet connection is down or if you want to play it on a PC without an Internet connection; and if Steam ever disappears as a service then you will never be able to install any of your games again.

Additional publisher DRM: Steam also allows publishers to add their own DRM on top of those restrictions. So games bought from them may include limited activations.

Are there activation limits? On some games, but it is not clear which.

Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? No. So there is no future-proof solution for if Steam ever disappears.

Can you find out about the DRM? No. Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to find out if there are limitations such as finite activations (and if so, how many) or online-only requirements (e.g. Ubisoft's) before purchase. There are no filters for searching based on these criteria. Some games have extra bits of description but it is confusing. Mass Effect 2 mentions registration codes and activation - is that a separate activation with EA Games or is it the Steam activation? How does it work? GTA IV says 'Initial activation requires Internet connection' - but Steam already does that - or does this mean you also have to activate the game with the publisher too? How many times can that be done? Can the publisher halt your activation even if you have paid for the game? There are just too many unanswered questions here.

Can you contact them easily? No. There is no 'contact us' email address. You can only contact them by opening a support account. That is rather crappy customer service - why should a potential customer with questions have to put up with barriers, creating new accounts and recording details just to ask a question? Then jumping through hoops to close the account if they decide not to use the service. You even have to wait for emails to activate an account just so that you can send them an email!

Other: Games get patched automatically, whether you want them to be or not. Some patches change games in ways you don't like, or break other features - forcing updates on customers is not very flexible (two examples - changing the Michael Jackson zombie in Plants Vs Zombies, and changing the ending of Portal) . Also if you want to play games offline you have to manually select that option for every game - it should be the default option. You have to use their Steam download manager - no choices there. Fianlly, even if a game maker wants it to be DRM-free (as many indie-devs do), then they can't do that with Steam.

Conclusion so far: The lack of information on restrictions makes the service impossible to use if you want to avoid two levels of restrictive DRM. The lack of openness of Steam (e.g. no email address) suggests that they are not customer-focussed.

Update 21 May 2010: We went through the hassle of creating a Steam Support account just so that we could contact them. We did that on 15th May. They replied four days later with this:

"Thank you for contacting Steam Support. Thank you for taking the time to report this issue. We are aware of the problem and are investigating the issue further. For news regarding the latest updates and patches, please check the SteamPowered News page"

Are they taking the piss? We didn't report an issue, we asked them for information about their policies and pointed them to the blog! Obviously Steam Support does not even read their customers' emails, they just bash out standard responses which are nothing to do with the issue. So they gain a crap for providing a clueless customer service; one crap for having multiple forms of DRM, sometimes on the same game; one crap for having limited activations on some games; one crap for forcing people to create a separate account just to contact them (little good that it does!); and one crap for not enabling customers to easily find out how the games they want to buy have been hobbled.

Update 30 May 2010: Later that day (21st May) they replied after we had complained to them about their first response. The anonymous Steam staff member said: "I accidentally pasted a response I had sent to a previous customer into your ticket and hit reply." They also said they would forward our questions on to another team to answer. Nine days later and they still haven't bothered to reply. We have asked them to close our Steam account, there is no way we would ever support a company that offers such crap service to customers.

Update 11 June 2010: Steam ignored our request on 30th May to close the account and stop storing our personal details in accordance with data protection guidelines. They obviously don't care about such issues. What a Steaming pile of crap.

Steam's current score:

Direct2Drive

Native DRM: Games have to go online during installation to activate them (so you can't install the game if your Internet connection is down or if you want to play it on a PC without an Internet connection; and if Direct2Drive ever disappears as a service then you will never be able to install any of your games again). Not ideal. By default there are limited activations too, which is a massive turn-off.

Additional publisher DRM: It is not clear from the site whether Direct2Drive allow publishers to add EXTRA DRM on top of this.

Are there activation limits? By default there are limited activations.

Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? No. So there is no future-proof solution for if Direct2Drive ever disappears.

Can you find out about the DRM? Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to find out if there are limitations such as finite publisher activations (and if so, how many) or online-only requirements before purchase. None of the games we checked mentioned this at all.

Can you contact them easily? No. There is no 'contact us' email address. You can only contact them by opening a support account. As with Steam, that is crappy customer service barriers to - (potential) customers. We created an account and selected 'general questions' - and even then there were fields that were not relevant such as 'Direct2Drive email address', yet they had been made mandatory. Extremely poor.

Other: You have to use their download manager - no choices there.

Conclusion so far: The lack of information on restrictions makes the service impossible to use if you want to avoid two levels of restrictive DRM. The lack of openness (e.g. no email address) suggests that they are not customer-focussed.

Update 21 May 2010: We went through the hassle of creating a D2D support account just so that we could contact them. We did that on 15th May. They have not bothered to respond at all. So they gain a crap for having either inept or uncaring Customer Service; one crap for having limited activations on all games; one crap for forcing people to create a separate account just to contact them (little good that it does!); and one crap for not enabling customers to easily find out how the games they want to buy have been hobbled.

Update 30 May 2010: They closed our support ticket unanswered. There is no way we would ever recommend a company that offers such a crap service to customers.

Update 11 June 2010: D2D ignored our request on 30th May to close the account: "Please close this support account. There is no point to it since you ignore requests sent through it." They are still storing our personal details against data protection guidelines. They obviously don't care about such issues. They are on the way to earning a 5th crap.

Update 12 June 2010: We received a response from D2D, but ONLY to our request to have our support account closed, since they don't offer it as an option. They said: "There is no account to shut down. There are no accounts attached to the email address used. To remove yourself from the database simply change your email address to a false email address at https://login.direct2drive.com/ and remove any personal information you may have provided."

The problem is that they are confused by their own systems, showing how overly-complex they have made them. We never created an account at https://login.direct2drive.com/ or even mentioned that site. Though it is interesting that they don't even enable customers to close those accounts, which implies that their data retention policies are illegal and their data management systems are archaic.

The account we asked them to close was the support one at http://supportcenteronline.com/ - on this one there isn't even an option to change the registered details, let alone close the account. Crap systems, and a customer services team who either ignore questions or completely misinterpret them. Utter crap. Could they be any worse?

Update 14 June 2010: After pointing out that their response had been nonsense, they replied with: "Your support account will not be shut down until it's classified as no longer in use by the system. We do not retain any information from that account. We would be unable to shut that down for you."

This is not a very clear response, but seems to imply that not only are they unable to delete an account from their system (showing that they have built or bought a crap support system) but they the accounts close automatically after a certain (undefined) period of non-use: hardly helpful to their customers. Then they blatantly lied by saying "We do not retain any information from that account". Names and email addresses are 'personal information'.

Direct2Drive's current score:

Get Games

Native DRM: All games require online activation, via one of three methods.

Additional publisher DRM: The site implies that some games require Steam as well. It is a bit uclear.

Are there activation limits? On some games, but it is not clear which.

Can you find out about the DRM? There is a brief FAQ. However it is not clear. Some games have the name of a DRM system but no information on how it works e.g. Aliens Vs Predator 3 says 'Steamworks', Alpha Protocol says 'Uniloc', yet Necrovision says nothing at all. What is the difference for the consumer with all these?
Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? No. So there is no future-proof solution for if Get Games ever disappears.

Can you contact them easily? Yes. After a quick filter you have the option of filling in a form. Full marks there.

Other: They also have games which are older but good, making sure that they are not lost for good: bonus marks there.

Conclusion so far: We'll see what they say when we contact them.

Update 15 May 2010: Get Games were the first to reply and were obviously interested in to suggestions and discussion. The fact that they made it easy to contact them means that they are definitely very responsive and open. Amongst aother things they said: "it is really interesting to get your perspective on what is good / bad / and needs better explanation. We are pretty new as a game service and consider where we are at as an open beta. In terms of content - our focus is on quality games rather than quantity of games [...] Going back to your point about explaining in a more clear fashion the DRM for each game and what the consumer is entering into when making a purchase > that is a really good point and I can see where we need to improve on that immediately. Please stay in touch and throw questions / issues my way as we do want to succeed as a company, but to do that we have to earn people's support." We will follow up this discussion.

Update 21 May 2010: Get Games had emailed us a few times as part of a discussion of these issues, so they are a company that listens and responds. It is a shame that they do not just use one form of DRM with unlimited activations and make it clear how it works - if they did we would promote them equally with GOG.

Based on our scoring system we have to award one crap for having multiple forms of DRM; one crap for having limited activations on some games; and one crap for not enabling customers to easily find out how the games they want to buy are restricted.

Hopefully two of those issues are being worked on and we can remove the bad marks for them in the near future. We feel that currently their score is more accurately a 2.5 crap than a 3 crap, but they don't sell crap by the half bucket at our local shops.

Get Games' current score:

Impulse

Native DRM: Impulse uses a client as a form of DRM (since you have to have it on your PC to download and install games). In their email to us (15th June 2010) they said the Impulse client is for "facilitating a secure download from our CDN servers to the user's PC after validating their user account credentials. Customers have the ability to create an archive of the game on their PC, move it to another PC, burn the archive to a disc, etc. Impulse is required to unarchive/reinstall the game, but it does not need to be online." This implies that you can install a game if your Internet connection is down or if you want to play it on a PC without an Internet connection, so that if Impulse ever disappears as a service then you will still be able to install any games you had already, not tied to just your current PC. However because it ties things to the Impulse client it is not clear whether you could install the client itself if the Impulse service disappeared (e.g. if the Impulse client requires connection to the server as part of its installation) - if not then the text above is incorrect, and you actually wouldn't be able to install the games you had bought.

On top of this, some games require online activation: "some Stardock products require activation over the Internet to use their enhanced versions"; "Internet access is required for activation of appropriate products purchased through our online store" (text from here). However there appears to be no way of finding out which games don't require activation.

Additional publisher DRM: Impulse allow publishers to host games on their system with additional DRM such as strict activation limits (e.g. restrictive software by 2K Games, EA and Ubisoft).

Are there activation limits? See 'Native DRM' above. Yes, on some games.

Can a game be kept on your PC and installed without going online? See 'Native DRM', above. So it is not yet clear whether there is a future-proof solution for if Impulse ever disappears.

Can you find out about the DRM? Can a customer exclude games with extra DRM from results lists? No. In their email to us (15th June 2010) they told us about the information they do provide though: "Generally speaking if nothing is listed in the "Protection" field on one of our product pages, then the game is DRM free. As an example, you can see on the Prince of Persia - The Forgotten Sands page (http://www.impulsedriven.com/popfs) that we list "Ubisoft’s Online Services Platform" as the Protection method; also for Capcom's Dark Void Zero (http://www.impulsedriven.com/darkvoidzero) we list that the game uses "SecuROM Activation (Unlimited Activations w/Revocation)". This is a start, though at present is unsatisfactory because the description does not link to information telling you what "Ubisoft’s Online Services Platform" or "SecuROM Activation (Unlimited Activations w/Revocation)" actually means. Does the latter one mean the game needs activating with an online connection? Can it be done limited times by default, but unlimited times if you use a piece of revocation software each time? Or is it online activation but as many times as you want (as long as the server exists) with no need for a revocation tool? Impulse added that "Whenever possible we list what DRM is in use on our product pages, including any set limitations (please note that this information is not always available to us, so we do the best we can based on what we can turn up)" but to be fair if Impulse wanted they could insist that the information has to be given by the publisher if Impulse are to host the game - anything less is unsatisfactory for their customers.

Can you contact them easily? Yes. We found an email address for pre-sales after digging around their web pages, so currently the ideal of a support email address on the first page is not achieved. In their email to us (15th June 2010) they said: "as to the ease of obtaining Impulse support, we're currently working to streamline this process. All of our customers may obtain official support from emailing support@stardock.com; many of us also are available on our IRC server (irc.stardock.com) in the #stardock channel." So all in all their customer service looks to be extremely good. We had made a comment below about our first email to them being prudishly bounced back due to the word 'crap' as part of the URL of our blog post, but because Impulse then replied so quickly and courteously we have removed that section now.

Other: A downside is that you have to have special Stardock software installed in order to get any games you have bought, or to install them. This is an unnecessary irritation. Also a search for games found some interesting ones - but when clicked on we were confronted with this:

A search for Prince of Persia - 6 results, but then you realise from the icons on the right that you can't buy any of them from Impulse, even though some of the games have been available in the UK for 8 years...

So obviously Impulse allows publishers to include arbitrary regional restrictions, which is a black mark against Impulse. It is a further irritation that the games show up in searches if you can't buy them.

Conclusion so far: We contacted Impulse again on 18 June 2010, asking them to correct any errors in this description and to make any other comments. We did not receive a reply so assume our description is accurate.

Impulse's current score:

Based on our scoring system we have to award one crap for having multiple forms of DRM, sometimes on the same game; one crap for having limited activations on some games; and one crap for not enabling customers to easily find out how the games they want to buy are restricted.

Conclusions
Obviously DRM is a balancing issue. The ideal for the consumer is GOG (or DotEmu), but that model is unlikely to be acceptable to most publishers for new games. As such, although it is still not perfect for the consumer, it is understandable that a game bought online will - at some point - need to be activated. An acceptable middleground seems to be that any game bought online will have to be activated online on installation (invisibly to the user); or it is activated and tied to a single PC on download, and can then be installed on that PC as many times as the user wants without needing to go online (and if they change PC they go through this process again). This is a minimal form of DRM that can be accepted and understood, as long as there are no limits on how many times you can install the game you have bought. Then it is not possible to pass on bought games to anyone else (the publishers' worry), yet anyone buying a game only has to deal with minimal hassle.

Unfortunately most services seem to have multiple forms of DRM (sometimes more than one form on the same game), each working differently, whilst also including limited activations in some cases, and not making any of that clear to the consumer. Therein lies the problem. Game download services would be fine as long as they only used one form of DRM (that listed in the paragraph above), clearly laid out in how it works, and refused to let publishers complicate things with further systems. To say: "This is the system we use on our service; it is effective and fair; our customers know what they are getting; if you want us to sell your game you have to agree that this will be the only form of DRM our customers have to deal with". So far it looks like none of the online services are putting their foot down on this issue, though we would love to be proved wrong!

In the meantime if you are desperate for a bargain, with no DRM, great games, and support for charity, then the Humble Indie Bundle is where you should spend your money. CCS paid £34.52 for the games in order to support such a great initiative. Many other developers will sell you their games with no DRM at all: as well as the Humble Indie Bundle, CCS recently bought Machinarium, World of Goo, Osmos, The Path and Fatale. So in many cases it is best to buy the games direct.

We are really pleased with all the emails people have sent us, including their own examples or thoughts on this issue. Keep sending them in! This is obviously an issue many people care about.

Update 16 May 2010: The great guys who developed Osmos said in an email to us: "Now that we've shipped a game DRM-free we'll never go back -- definitely the way to go. (DRM is like trying to swim upstream... a waste of energy. ;-)" Please support them!

Update 30 May 2010: Steam and Direct2Drive never even bothered to answer our questions about their DRM systems and how they work. As such, even though when we first thought of doing a blog on this subject we started out really looking forward to signing up to all these services, we now won't be doing it when it is clear that their customer services are so... crap. Whilst they are not open about DRM and allow systems that are unfair to the purchaser there is too much potential for problems, and since they don't respond to questions there would be no way of resolving them. Buyer beware! This is another example of how companies with crap customer service manage to transform interested potential customers into people who have a negative opinion of them. However the other companies responded to various degrees and some seemed interested in improving (and as a result we removed some of our criticisms of them).

LoveFilm, but sod the environment

2010-04-05T14:09:00.014+01:00

This began around twelve months ago, in May 2009. I was a Lovefilm customer - the subscription service whereby DVD films are sent to you and you return them in the post when you have finished with them. As you can imagine, this kind of service uses a massive amount of paper every year for all their envelopes (and letters, and unwanted promotional spam slipped in with the films...). At that point I noticed that they don't use 100% post-consumer waste for their envelopes and paperwork, which is the best option environmentally, and the only one for any decent company with an environmental policy that is worth more than the paper it is printed on. The recycling industry is facing huge problems because companies like Lovefilm don't buy post-consumer waste products, and there is no excuse for them not to do so. I asked their Customer Service department if Lovefilm would be switching to post-consumer waste paper, and giving reasons why.

The 2009 emails
As you can imagine, there was no such clear answer forthcoming, only a generic fob-off on 22nd May 2009:

Thank you for your email.
Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused.
We appreciate your valuable feedback about new envelopes, we have forwarded this to our relevant department and they will look into this further.
Should you have any more questions, please do let us know and we will be happy to assist you further.

I emailed them again in September 2009, pointing out:

It has been four months since my email below. Please can you tell me _exactly_ what actions Lovefilm has taken since then with regard to switching to 100% post-consumer recycled waste for the envelopes?

I noticed that the envelopes have changed recently, and use extra glue and are more fiddly to open. That means Lovefilm are using even more chemicals now, i.e. moving in the opposite direction to environmental improvement. If Lovefilm could implement a new design that is worse, why couldn't you have implemented a new design that used 100% post-consumer recycled paper?

After all, if a company says they will consider something, and really do so (rather than deleting the email) then they should be able to tell you when it was discussed, what facts and figures were looked at, what policies would be affected etc. The next day I got a reply, but as you can see, it was nothing to do with my query. Instead someone had skimmed it, seen the word 'envelopes' and just forwarded on a standard reply about a completely different subject. This is exactly what differentiates Crap Customer Services from good ones (do any exist?) In this case the Crap was as follows, pasted in its entirety so you can see what a non sequitur it was:

Thank you for your email about your recent dispatches. We are pleased to confirm that we do indeed provide multiple discs in single envelopes for some dispatches (wherever possible).

We have set this up so that you get more of what you want to watch when you want to watch it and therefore, a better, more efficient service all round. It is also a great way to not only reduce the postage costs associated with the service, but also means we can reduce the amount of packaging wasted and have a positive impact on the environment. The money saved as a result of these changes is being reinvested to help improve our service and acquire more rental stock.

This process does not affect the number of discs you get each month, as you can still send films back straight away after you have finished with them. We will not delay your dispatches and will only group titles into one package if they were originally going to be dispatched to you on the same day, we will not hold titles back in an effort to send them in the same package.

You do not have to wait until you have watched all your titles to send them back to us. The protective sleeves allow you to fit up to three discs in one envelope. Alternatively, you may send the discs back individually if you wish. At regular intervals we will send you spare envelopes so that you don't run out, however, in the unlikely event that you do, you can order extra return envelopes by going to our Envelope Request page. You can find this in our "report a problem tool" on the My Rental List page.

We hope this has answered your question and hope you continue to enjoy the service!

I replied, pointing out that my actual email had been ignored, and a completely irrelevant standard response to a different question given. I was disappointed that Lovefilm staff didn't even read customer emails and draft an original and correct reply.

They then replied again on September 10th 2009 - but this time with a long email about how "Grycksbo Paper was certified with Chain-of-Custody under PEFC" etc. Again, nothing to do with the question I asked. It is enough to drive any sane person mad: the apparent failure in simple communication, whereby a company like Lovefilm is unable to read simple English and answer a question.

On September 10th 2009 I replied:

Why is it so hard to get a correct answer? This is my fourth attempt.

I didn't ask about the scheme you use for managed forests.

Lovefilm use a lot of paper. However it doesn't use 100% post-consumer waste for envelopes and paperwork, which would be the best choice environmentally. Instead you use virgin pulp, which is not so good. The recycling industry is facing huge problems because companies like Lovefilm don't buy post-consumer waste products. There is no excuse for not doing so.

All along I have wanted to know WHY Lovefilm avoids using post-consumer waste, and whether Lovefilm has any plans to switch to it. It has got to the point after all these standardised emails from Lovefilm that I am going to complain on some of the environmental sites about companies like you refusing to support the recycling industry.

I had also commented that Lovefilm recently changed the envelope design to one which uses more glue, and therefore more chemicals. That is unnecessary and wasteful.

I really hope Lovefilm has plans to switch to 100% post-consumer recycled paper for envelopes etc, and that you can tell me the date of the switch.

The next day they replied. However their email was again full of bizarre claims. For example: "we are not actively avoiding the issue of recycling as we always adhere to government statutes". Ahem, when did I mention Government guidelines? And since when did Government guidelines ever equal best practice? They always represent the bare minimum legally required, not the best that could be achieved. Just because it is legal to use virgin paper or to produce nuclear power or to have wasteful business processes, it does not mean that it is good to do so.

The Lovefilm response then went on to claim that recycled paper was not of sufficient quality for the purposes of their disposable envelopes. "As such we will keep the remaining model we use until such time as a recyclable product is available of sufficient quality to be able to provide the service our customers pay for."

September 12th 2009, time for my reply:

I think Lovefilm must be stuck in the 1980s. If you said this to any company making recycled paper today you would be laughed out of town. Modern recycled paper is indistinguishable from paper from virgin pulp (assuming you purchase the high-grade paper). I work with a number of large organisations, and they now use 100% recycled paper in all their printers - printers which are used for high-quality colour printouts which are far more demanding than printing an address on an envelope. If Lovefilm seriously thinks that recycled paper is not good enough then you have obviously not seriously looked into it; or you have not been in touch with reputable companies. Either way this is shocking.

I have forwarded Lovefilm's comments about the quality of the products from the recycling industry to some major suppliers; the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; and the Paper Federation of Great Britain. Unless I hear something positive from Lovefilm soon then I will continue to post messages about this issue on the environmental and consumer fora I contribute too.

I would also like this complaint to go to the head of Customer Services - I consider Lovefilm's attitude here to be reprehensible, and think that this is a very serious issue.

On September 14th 2009 I had a brief reply, saying "I have passed your details onto our head office to read over. They will be in contact shortly regarding this."

No-one at Lovefilm replied. They had misread my emails, answered fictitious and unrelated questions, insulted the quality of recycled products, and finally lied to one of their customers. Five emails had been sent and still they had given nothing apart from fob-offs. These are the actions that show that the Customer Services Department you are dealing with is a Crap one.

The 2010 emails - success or more lies?
Since they started Lovefilm must have sent out millions of envelopes and pieces of paper, none recycled.

In January I decided to try and get them to see sense one more time. I emailed them to say:

Six months ago I asked why Lovefilm was not using 100% post consumer waste recycled envelopes. Lovefilm's business uses a lot of paper and there is no excuse not to minimise that environmental impact. I received excuses and in the six months since then nothing has been done. If Lovefilm will not make changes in order to improve its green credentials then I will raise Lovefilm as an example of a poor company on blogs about the environment and poor company practices. However I would much rather be able to praise Lovefilm for doing its bit towards supporting recycling and preventing waste. I would appreciate a final answer as to Lovefilm's plans, and not to just be told you are 'looking into it' or have 'forwarded the email to the relevant department'. Those are cop outs and I would be forced to point that out to blog readers.

I'm sure it will be clear that I had been pretty patient so far. And when the following reply arrived I was overjoyed at first. They had seen sense!

Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM

Thank you for your recent email, I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

I can confirm about 5 months ago the envelopes in which we use were changed and the new envelopes that we are using are now fully recycle envelopes.

Woo hoo! Brilliant! They were a company that wanted to improve their shoddy green practices after all!

But then I got suspicious. I went and looked at an envelope that came from Lovefilm. It still had the old note saying that it was virgin paper, there was nothing about them using recycled paper (let alone 100% post consumer waste recycled paper). I realised that it was a blatant lie to say the envelopes were 100% recycled. They were just trying to fob their customers off again.

I asked for the email address of a supervisor or someone higher up in Lovefilm so that I could see some evidence to back up the claim that Lovefilm had switched to 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper. I was sick and tired of Customer Services' ineptitude and blatant lying. I got a first reply saying:

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding our envelopes.

I apologise for any inconvenience that has been caused to you.

I can confirm I have passed your details on to our Head Office so that one of our senior managers can look into your query for you. I can assure you as soon as I hear back from them regarding this I will contact you further.

I again apologise for any inconvenience that has been caused and should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Note how much of that email is made up of standard lines and phrases. Heads of Customer Service departments who get their staff to use that kind of thing are obviously patronising wankers. By using standard words and phrases to say you are sincere you are undercutting your own message in an act of deconstruction that is an insult to any rational being.

January 11th 2010, another reply: "We shall certainly look to use paper from post-consumer waste moving froward although I am unable to advise as to a timescale or a guarantee as to when this will be."

No explanation of why I had been lied to. No firm information, or promises of progress reports. Just a vague claim to 'look into it'. Those are all classic signs of the fob-off.

Then, just to top it all, they sent yet more unwanted promotional crap to me. You see, Lovefilm have a scheme whereby they allow members to get credit for introducing new members, who also get a bit of free credit. However this is often promoted with mass mailouts using completely unnecessary plastic credit cards. They had sent those to me before. A blatant waste of resources to a customer who was obviously concerned about the environment.

Unnecessary plastic crap.

That was pretty much the last straw. I had written a number of times complaining that Lovefilm doesn't use recycled paper. Nothing had changed on that front. Right from the start Lovefilm should have been using post-consumer waste recycled paper. The stupid promotional letter with two plastic 'gift cards' inside was a ridiculous and unnecessary waste of resources, sent out to a huge number of customers. To add further insult, the letter was addressed to a county that didn't exist, and hadn't for over ten years. So Lovefilm's internal systems were obviously outdated and they couldn't be bothered fixing them.

I tried to cancel my Lovefilm account. Do they make that easy for customers? Of course not. After finding the correct option online and clicking on it, all you got was a message that you then had to ring Customer Services to cancel! The idiots who had caused all the irritation in the first place! Why should a customer have to jump through hoops to cancel a subscription?

And guess what? They don't even then close the account. As their email of 30th March 2010 said:

the door is always open for you to come back to us whenever you wish. Simply login to www.lovefilm.com using your usual details and you will be able to reactivate your account online.

So even when you closed your account and asked them to delete your details, they still kept them - bank details, passwords, names and addresses, all in complete violation of your rights to control your own data. Yes, that is the kind of company they are.

What should you do?
The only obvious explanation for all this is that companies like Lovefilm do not respect either the environment or their customers. So what is the alternative? Easy! Environmentally, socially and health-wise, the best option is to walk to and support your local independent video shop or public library. They will appreciate your custom.

So for lying; making things difficult; and not being environmentally-friendly, Lovefilm will have to love their 3-crap rating.

Update 17th September 2010: Lovefilm now go up a whole crap level. This week they wrote to me (showing that they had kept all my personal details against my wishes) trying to persuade me to sign up. Guess what? They included non-recyclable, wasteful plastic cards, and the letter was again printed on virgin pulp, the worst type of paper environmentally. Idiots. I have reported Lovefilm to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Update 30th September 2010: Lovefilm sink to new lows. This week Royal Mail delivered unsolicited, unaddressed junkmail from them. Not just one, but two envelopes on the same day! How many tons of junkmail have they paid to be delivered across the UK in this blanket-bombing spam attack? Again, not even on recycled paper. Lovefilm certainly Loveannoying.

Update 20th November 2010: Lovefilm sent more junkmail, including further wasteful plastic cards, despite having been told on numerous occasions to stop sending this junk. They are complete crap, and ignore data protection laws. The result of their stupid marketing is that I would never go back to them and when people ask me about film loan companies I always warn them away from Lovefilm. Don't companies realise the negative effect their mindless automated systems have? This time I have complained to the Data Commisioner about them - case reference number INF0377594.

Update 27th February 2011: Lovefilm sent more junkmail paper and plastic, despite all my complaints and requests to have my personal details removed from their databases. See image below.

Yet in an email from them on Sunday November 21 2010 they said:

"Thank you for your recent e-mail. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. I would like to inform you that I have forwarded the request to the relevant department to remove your physical address from our mailing list and it will be done as soon as possible. Should you have any more queries, please do let us know and we will be happy to assist you. "

Obviously they are either inept or liars. For consistent lying and waste and ignoring people they gain another crap, and are now 5 Crap Rated. Well done Lovefilm! You idiots.

Lovefilm's current score:

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

2009-12-29T12:18:00.012Z

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:

Uncreative

2009-12-28T16:36:00.007Z

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:

Sony

2009-12-17T16:09:00.009Z

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:

Toshiba Twistaround

2009-09-04T15:36:00.008+01:00

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:

Which? Awards 2009

2009-08-28T17:42:00.003+01:00

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.

Co-operative Bank update

2009-08-12T18:36:00.008+01:00

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'.

Uncooperative Bank

2009-07-15T18:59:00.017+01:00

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

Nation Wideboys

2009-07-04T17:49:00.007+01:00

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:

Royal Mail

2009-06-27T14:58:00.023+01:00

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).

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

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.

Welcome

2009-06-27T12:08:00.009+01:00

Have you ever had experience of poor customer service when dealing with companies? And felt powerless to do anything about it? Well, now you can send the examples here.

This blog will spotlight the things companies would rather keep as dirty secrets, so send them in. The blog will also include updates if the companies cave in and eventually treat their customers with the respect they deserve.

Featured companies will receive one 'crap' for each thing they do wrong:

There are then totalled for a final rating (out of five 'craps') as follows:

Companies threatening legal action for publicising their failings will automatically receive an extra 'crap' (and more if they continue). Companies apologising and correcting their mistakes will have 'craps' removed, and may go back to the coveted status of 'no craps' if they act quickly enough:

So obviously the longer a company spends denying responsibility, or being belligerent, the worse their rating will be. Whereas those that apologise and fix things will come off smelling of roses.