Johnn waits and waits for reply from SPH

       I can understand my friend Johnn Ong's frustration when he told me this morning about his attempts to give feedback to Singapore Press Holdings on his Straits Times' digital subscription and how he ended up without any sense of satisfaction.
      Johnn, a subscriber to both the print and online versions of the newspaper for many years, told me that his iPad service was abruptly cut off early this month.
       He subsequently learnt that his older model of the iPad was no longer compatible with the changes that had been made for the digital service of the newspaper.  But there no notification given about the changes, he said.
       His wife called SPH customer service and was "truly aggrieved by the services provided."  The people who attended to her were not able to answer her queries satisfactorily.
       Johnn said it took him a week before he realised that SPH was not able to service those subscribers who were using the older version of the iPad.
       As his iPad was still in good condition, he did not think he should buy a new one just to get his daily news from the tablet.  What irritated him was the fact that he was not made aware of the changes made to the delivery system that rendered his iPad obsolete.
       He tried to speak to a senior manager about his problem but somehow his attempts were blocked. So he decided to write an email to a customer service officer. That was on September 8. To date, he has not heard from SPH.
     Johnn now wants to know whether SPH would compensate him for the remaining part of his subscription as he believes it was not able to deliver a service that was part of the contract.






      


 


   


        

Newly-wed's letter to Ryanair -- 'The best complaint letter ever"

    

	I have just read a complaint letter to budget airline Ryanair that I would consider "the best complaint letter that I have read".   It is so brilliantly written that I thought I should share with you. It is pasted on Facebook and has garnered thousands of "like". Enjoy... James Lockley April 24 · Posted to Ryan Air today; Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing for the attention of your customer experience team. I am definitely a customer, and believe me, you didn’t fail providing us with an experience. My wife and I had booked to fly from Stansted on the Thursday 17th April, evening flight to Bratislava. After 2 hours of fun, fun, fun, stuck on the M25 doing 20 mph, we arrived at Stansted check in with just one hour until the flight. Knowing the strict Ryan Air policy on ‘check in closes 40 mins before the flight’ as you are the Low Fare Taxi of The Skies, we went straight to the Ryan Air assistant and explained our plight. She said we were still within the time and all would be fine but we had to make the attendant at check in aware and he would assist from there. We approached the attendant as instructed and explained. Unfortunately, in the main part, due to him being a child, and forgetting to bring his mother to work, he heard only half of the words before his brain fell apart like a wet cake.  He led us to the line for closing gates, advised we should wait and all would be ok. We stood patiently in the line for 20 minutes. We got to the front of the line and the lady, who we shall from this point refer to a Vacant, explained that she had literally just that second closed the flight and we had missed it. We complained that we had done as instructed and she said it was the child’s fault because he should have advised her that we were trying to board a closing flight and that because he hadn’t told her it was therefore our fault we had missed the plane. Confused by this process of blame apportioning, another check in clerk, who we shall refer to as Not That Bright, tried to blame us for not responding to the last call for the flight as we should have made ourselves known. I argued that the last call had not been made. Not That Bright then questioned Vacant on whether she had done a final call. Vacant did what she does best and looked, well,…… After establishing that the child had not informed Vacant we were here, and Vacant had forgotten to do a last call and that all of this was irreversible, and my fault, Not That Bright and Vacant conferred to agree this was not a problem they wished to deal with and told us to get in a very, very long line of very, very unhappy people at the quite wrongly titled ‘Customer Services Counter’ as it was in fact a Customer Shouting Desk. We complained and requested the attention of a manager. Out came Colin, a man so angry all his hair had literally fallen out. He was so aggressive I can only assume he had accidentally inserted something sharp into somewhere private and been unable to remove it before he came to work. He was definitely a middle Gimp. I know this as Vacant and Not That Bright were clearly quite scared of him, and he can’t have been a Big Cheese as he was talking directly to customers and we all know from the papers that no-one in Big Cheese management at Ryan Air has ever seen, let alone spoken to an actual customer. Middle Gimp had clearly listen hard at Ryan Air Middle Gimp school as he managed to take two perfectly calm and sane adults and in a matter of seconds reduce them to angry people considering violence. ‘Check in opens 3 hours before the flight’ he barked repeatedly as if it was the answer to every question in life. We tried to ask Middle Gimp direct questions about why it was necessary for us to miss the flight because the Child had forgotten to do his job, and Vacant had forgotten to do hers. ‘Why is this our fault, and why should we miss the flight because Ryan Air staff have admitted they made errors?. ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ ‘Do you acknowledge we have just cause for complaint as we tried to do the right thing and the only reason we are not on the plane is because of communication failures with Ryan Air Staff?’ ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ ‘What colour are my trousers?’ ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ ‘Do you think economic sanctions on Russia will diffuse the escalating situation in Ukraine?’ ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ ‘Were Man Utd right to fire David Moyes?’ ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ ‘My tinkle is hurting, could you take a look if I promise not to tell anyone?’ ‘Check in opens three hours before the flight’ Middle Gimp then conferred with Vacant and Not That Bright, and agreed that this was all our fault as we should have noticed that Child had made an error and we should have called the flight ourselves to assist Vacant in doing her job because she was clearly busy being, well,…... Middle Gimp then insisted we go to customer the Customer Shouting Desk, as he was definitely not going to do anything else. This was handy as the queue was very long so that by the time we would reach the front the plane would be half way to Bratislava and the problem would be solved. We waited patiently in line as customer after customer stood at the desk to hear the same song; ‘No, no, I can’t do that, no, there are no Middle Gimps available, no, no, sorry, no, give me all your money’ We got to the Customer Shouting Desk and explained our plight to the lady there (who was actually very nice and clearly should not be working for Ryan Air as a result). She apologised but explained that Middle Gimp had finished being angry for the day and had returned to his padded cage and there were no other Middle Gimps around.  We would have to book in to the flight for the next day and we would have to pay £110 each to change the ticket. When she tried to re-book the flight she said that the flight we had tried to get was actually delayed by 1 hour and still at the air port and that what we should do is run to the gate with all our luggage, she would call through and they would check our bags into the hold at the gate. We ran as fast as we could, which is not very fast because I am fat, to security to do as instructed. Security advised us that because our flight should have left, even though it hadn’t, the ticket machine would not open the barrier for us and we would need to return to the Customer Shouting Desk. We waited patiently in the very long queue yet again for about 40 minutes to discover the nice lady had also gone home now so we had to explain the whole thing again to a new lady that looked like all the joy had been removed from her life at birth. She recited the Ryan Air customer services song with a sterling level of apathy and dreariness, I am surprised she could muster the will just to breather and stay alive. ‘No, no, I can’t do that, no, there are no Middle Gimps available, no, no, sorry, no, give me all your money’ She recited it with perfection, Middle Gimps across the world would have been in awe and the effectiveness of the techniques taught in Middle Gimp School. Seeing no other option but to hand over all our cash and come back the next morning we happily paid and got new flights. As the new flight was at 6.25am in the morning we decided to get a hotel, we paid £79 for a room and got a taxi. So, our customer experience was insightful and liberating. From the incompetent Child with a brain so full of girls and Vauxhall Corsa modifications he couldn’t actually listen or speak, through Vacant and Not That Bright who decided on reflection that anything they did wrong was our fault for not pointing it out to them, right through Middle Gimp who made a Tasmanian Devil look calm and Zen like, and the sad one, oh so sad, having every last drop of life sucked out of her by her chosen career at the Ryan Air Customer Shouting Desk.  I very nearly jumped over the desk just to give her a cuddle and tell her everything would be alright if she could just muster the will to leave the Ryan Air Customer Shouting Desk and find a more fulfilling job, like starting the very first Israeli pork pie factory, or being a parking attendant in Tower Hamlets, or in fact just resigning herself to a slow and uncomfortable death would have been indistinguishable from the current position and would require much less effort. The net result of this ‘experience’ was; New Flights - £220 Hotel £79 Taxi x 2 £50 Worlds most expensive sandwich in the only hotel we could get £35 1 x significant breach of Tort Law (2008 as quoted by Lord Atkin) by Ryan Air, Google it, it’s a cracking read. I will leave you to decide the monetary value of this. 1 x very angry and upset wife, in particular with Middle Gimp for being so unbelievably rude. 1 x Missed wedding reception for our Slovakian family (sorry, forgot to mention this nugget earlier) who all turned up from all over the country to see us for an event we were forced to miss, because Child and Vacant are clueless at best and Middle Gimp has anger management issues. So, thank you Ryan Air for a comfortable and enjoyable experience. I have watched a program called the news so I fully expect this to land on the desk of the customer services team underneath the empty bottles and sandwich wrappers that you also file there. You treated us badly, you cost us money and made us miss our wedding reception through a display of incompetence I have not seen since Greece was allowed to have money and a cheque book. I sincerely doubt you will do anything about this, compensate us, apologise, or even respond according to the news, so I have sent this recorded and sign for delivery to absolutely confirm my opinion of Ryan Air and that it is not just ‘lost in the post’ Regards You bunch of……………. DJ Lockley P.S. Maybe Middle Gimp in particular, but Child, Not That Bright, and Vacant should purchase one of your reasonable priced tickets and go to Slovakia (assuming they were actually allowed on the plane. The Ryan Air employees there are smart, clever, bilingual, helpful, and polite and they should in my opinion experience an example of how they should do their job. The Slovak staff could explain it to them, but they wouldn’t be able to understand it for them, so it may be a waste of time after all.

 

 

 

 

 

Bouquet for Volvo's Doy Chan

It's nice when one is shown some goodwill that arises from an employee's ability to show his initiative. Better still if the recipient is yours truly.

It all started on Sunday when my three-year-old Volvo car decided to stall on me after I had dropped my golf bag at SICC Island Location.  Luckily I was able to nudge it to the side so that it would not be holding up traffic.

About two hours later, after the Automotive Association technician had pronounced it was not the battery but the alternator problem, it was towed to the Volvo workshop in Alexander Road.  It also meant the end of what I thought would be an enjoyable day on the golf course.

The next morning, Volvo's service consultant Catherine Lee, called. I told her what the AA said was the problem.  A subsequent call a few minutes later, she gave me the bad news -- the culprit was indeed the alternator and that it would cost me $1,600-plus to get it replaced.

I protested as I was not happy to have to pay for a new alternator because my three-year warranty had ended less than a month ago.

I argued that it was ridiculous that an alternator could last only three years, especially when the mileage of my car was so low. I asked that it be replaced free of charge.

It was apparent that Catherine was not in a position to grant my request, so I asked to speak to someone higher up.

In less than 30 minutes, a guy who identified himself as Doy called me. After I explained to him why I should be entitled to a free replacement, he, in a pleasant, non-defensive voice, said he understood what I was saying and agreed readily to my request.

However, he said he would have to charge me for the labour cost, which I thought was a fair compromise.

But I really appreciate Doy's initiative and willingness to look at the problem from my point of view. 

I phoned Volvo's service centre today to find out more about him.  The man who answered my call said his full name was "Doy Chan".  Asked if his designation was a service manager, he quipped: "Not yet".

Doy is now a service supervisor, but if first impressions are anything to go by, I bet he will become a manager real soon.

A bouquet for Doy Chan!

OCBC gives Anne a pain in the butt

I thought I was the only one making noise about the short-sightedness of our consumer bankers when I posted my story yesterday about DBS Bank ("DBS leaves me breathless").

 

     Two days ago, my friend Anne Wong suddenly surfaced in my email to relate her unhappiness with OCBC online banking under the headline, "Mindset of Singapore bankers?"

 

     This was what she wrote:

 

"I have just got off the phone with a lady from the OCBC call centre.

Before writing this, I visited your blog to catch up on the latest before emailing about my lousy experience with OCBC (NOT the fault of the lady at the call centre but of the bank’s boffins).

It’s ironical that you have been having troubles with DBS and someone else was given the run around by HSBC. But timely too because OCBC is now giving me a severe pain in the butt!

Tonight I went to do my usual, regular transfer to cover outgoings for the next few months. Lo and behold, I could not effect the transfer of funds to an account because OCBC ONLY offers FAST transfers - at a much lower transaction limit.

Instead of adding the FAST transfer facility as an additional option, OCBC has replaced the previous transfer option with FAST but LESSER transfer!

So what’s one to do?

OCBC suggests splitting the transfer amounts -- which necessitates spending more time and effort to make the transfer than before!

Another alternative the call centre lady gave me was to make the transfer using the recurring or future dated facility. I had to inform her that when I went to the page for managing payees, I was faced with two options -- DELETE payee or ADD payee.

And when I clicked on managing recurring or future transfers, it said I had none registered!

In the last few years OCBC has made cosmetic changes, essentially to the presentation of information.

But now they have fiddled with what was not broken and, in the process, broken it.

I thought online banking was for the consumer’s convenience, but how convenient is it to make multiple FAST transfers instead of one ‘normal’ transfer?

The thought passed through my mind to change banks, but if HSBC and DBS are as muddle-headed as OCBC what are the choices? It would seem that the odds are stacked against meeting a bank that does basic banking well in Singapore!

And to think that today’s newspaper proudly proclaimed that Singapore students are tops at problem solving!

Are we declining faster than I feared?"

 

Well said, Anne.

DBS leaves me breathless!

It's confirmed.  DBS Bank does not consider personal assets exceeding $2 million to be good enough to grant retirees credit limits above the regulatory norm for their credit cards even though the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has provided for this.

     And yet it says it is "in alignment with the MAS regulatory parameters on unsecured credit card limits."

     In his reply to my letter asking for an explanation why I could not qualify for a permanent credit limit increase, Mr Anthony Seow, the bank's executive director for Cards and Unsecured Loans, says:

    "A bank is indeed permitted to grant credit limits above the regulatory parameters on unsecured credit card limits of 2 months' or 4 months' income to a Singaporean cardholder whose total net personal assets exceed S$2 million or who receives an annual income of at least S$120,000.

     "Nonetheless, we also have in place further parameters that govern our respective credit policies and guidelines; these are proprietary to the Bank."

     Bottomline?  All retirees who do not have an annual income of $120,000 even though they may have assets worth more than $2 million, are not considered risk-worthy and therefore cannot get their credit limit increased without security.

    The bank does not care whether a retiree has been a customer for close to 50  years, a Treasures member since its inception (which means the bank would have utilised his  fairly substantial deposits over many years, paying pittance in interest) and has never defaulted on his credit card payments.

    Why is there  this prejudice against retirees who opt to take it easy as they have more than enough personal assets to see them through their sunset years?

    Why does the bank need to ask such people to place a minimum of $10,000 in fixed deposit as a security before it is willing to grant their requests? 

    Why isn't the trust reciprocated as these people have bank deposits that are worth much much more than the $10,000 being asked for? 

    Where is the convenience promised for Treasures members when a simple request like this one cannot be acceded to?

    The irony is that the bank is in fact making it more inconvenient by having its own "proprietory parameters" and yet has the cheek to declare that it is "in alignment with MAS regulatory parameters."

     What's even more annoying and mysterious is that the bank had never disclosed the MAS' criterion that it could grant our request based on personal assets until it was told to me by our regulators.

     From what I have experienced, DBS'  "Living, breathing Asia" tagline leaves me...breathless!!!
      

    

    

    

   

    

     

     

     

      

    

 

      

 

 

 

DBS says property is not an asset

DBS continues to surprise me.  This morning, one of its officers called to inform me that I could not use my property as evidence of my risk-free status so that I could qualify for an increase in credit limit for my credit card.

The reason? It does not consider a property worth more than $2 million an asset despite the fact that the Monetary Authority of Singapore has told me in an email (see posting below) that it is one of the criteria which the bank can use.

I do not know the rationale for the bank taking this position but I told the officer that I would like to get to the bottom of this. I have written to the MAS -- again -- to seek clarification .

But I think I should also write to the bank officially to find out .

MAS reply shows DBS was not transparent

After posting about my unhappiness over DBS's treatment of retirees regarding credit card limit (headlined "Inflexible DBS over a simple matter), I wrote to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to ask whether it was responsible for making such a ridiculous ruling.
  
Last week, the MAS responded.  I am happy to report that it is in fact the bank that has not been totally open and transparent with me.

To recap, I had asked for a permanent increase to my credit limit but was rejected even though I had more than enough funds in the bank to cover my spendings.

However, DBS said I would only be allowed to do so if I could fill up an employment income form. If not, I had to provide a secured deposit. 

I told them that it was ridiculous since I was a retiree.  It never even bothered to ask whether I had other forms of income or assets.  How's that for risk management???

As for the secured deposit option, I said it was an inconvenience, and I wasn't interested in a pittance that it pays in interest.

From the MAS response, it is apparent that the DBS officers who spoke to me were either not aware or did not bother to ask whether I had other forms of income or had assets worth more than $2 million.

This morning, I spoke to a DBS officer and told her about what the MAS had said.  I said I was re-applying for a permanent credit limit increase.
Now I wait anxiously for enlightenment.

Lastly, I would like to apologise to the MAS for assuming that it had made an unfair ruling.

Below, my email to the MAS and its reply...

"Dear regulator,

I have been trying to get my bank to increase my permanent credit card limit so that it would be more convenient for me to pay for goods and services that require a substantial sum of money.

So far, I have been unsuccessful because I am told that a recent MAS ruling requires retirees like me to submit evidence of employment income even though such people may have more than enough funds in the bank to cover their spendings.

I find this MAS ruling so ridiculous. Why do you have a rule that cuts across the whole spectrum of retirees without thinking of the consequences? Don't you think that there is a possibility that some retirees might have more money than others? And surely they deserve the right to spend a little more on themselves in their twilight years.

 This rule also shows that MAS does not trust our bankers to be able to do the right thing. If not, why are you not allowing them some leeway when it comes to granting credit limits to  those retirees who do not pose any credit risk.

Please confirm that this rule is iron-cast and that our banks are not allowed to show any flexibility whatsoever when it comes to increasing the credit limits for retirees.

At a time when there is so much talk about caring for the elderly, it is sad to know that MAS could come up with a rule that is clearly and totally discriminatory."

THE MAS REPLY

"We refer to your email dated 25 February 2014.

We understand your frustration in this matter, and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify our credit card rules.  Under MAS’ credit card rules, a bank is not required to obtain proof of its cardholder’s income before granting him a credit limit increase where the increase is fully secured by deposits placed with the bank.

Where the credit limit increase is not fully secured, the bank is generally required to verify the cardholder’s income before granting the credit limit increase.  This is to ensure that the new credit limit granted accords with the regulatory limit of 4 months’ income (for those earning at least $30,000 a year) and 2 months’ income (for those earning less than $30,000 a year).  However, banks are allowed to grant credit limits above the regulatory limits to a cardholder who has total net personal assets exceeding $2 million or annual income of at least $120,000.  In verifying the cardholder’s annual income, the bank is not limited to considering employment income.  The bank is also permitted to take into account non-salaried income such as rental, dividend and interest income. 

We hope the above has been of assistance.  Please feel free to let us know if you require any further information.

Thank you.

Regards,

Xiu Si
Corporate Communications Officer
Monetary Authority of Singapore"

HSBC teller sends Miel on a spin

Soon after I posted my gripe about DBS today, I read  this Facebook posting below by my friend and ex-colleague Dengcoy, popularly known by his  cartoon byline Miel....

"Dear HSBC, your service sucks! it's called Inconvenient Banking.

WHY? went to the Claymore branch this morning to make a transaction only to be told by the teller to call an 1800-number. But I told her that I am here and now ready to make that transaction. She insisted that I still have to call the 1800-number. Okay, fine. So, I called said number from the office only to be told by some call-center chap from Mordor that I have to go back to the bank to do my business! WT...! "

  I was really incensed after I read the post as I know Miel to be a mild-mannered and obliging guy and can easily be taken advantaged of by many people.   I am sure he was in this case because he obeyed what the teller told him to do!!!

Many of his friends have reacted to what had happened to him. One said he should have thumped the table and demanded service. Another  thought a better line of action would have been to curse the teller in  the Hokkien dialect.

Maybe Miel should do what he does best --- draw a cartoon to show up the bank for its mindless service and post it on social media. After all, he is  a world-class cartoonist. And a so-called global bank like HSBC surely does not deserve  anything less..

Inflexible DBS over a simple matter

The joy of getting a new credit card from DBS was short-lived for me.

Almost two months after I had the DBS Altitude card (see the last posting below), I discovered that the credit limit set for me was much too low to make any substantial payment. In this instance, I didn't have enough "credits" to pay for a cruise that our travel group has planned.

I also realised that being a Treasures member does not make things easy -- even for simple things. Worse still, if  you are a retiree with no employment income and income tax returns to back you up.

But what about all my hard-earned money that I have deposited with the bank over the years, earning pittance in terms of interest????

Apparently, that is not good enough for me to obtain a higher credit limit.

So I called my relationship manager (RM) Leonard yesterday to protest. He promised to ask the higher-ups for approval.

One day later, there was no word from him. His mobile was not answered. I left an SMS for him to call me back urgently.  Nothing happened.

Meanwhile, I decided to call the Treasures hotline and gave a sweet-sounding girl named Susie a earful (well, in a pleasant way).  She tried to fob me off with her usual line -- "I will ask the RM to call you back".

I wasn't in the mood to be taken in by a voice, sweet though it may be.  I asked to speak to the manager. She said the manager was not available. So I asked for the CEO.

When she realised that I meant business, she said she would put up my request for a credit limit increase. I told her it was urgent. She said she would get back to me in an hour.

And she did!  But, alas, it was only a temporary increase and there was a time limit, i.e. I had to use it by a certain date.

I asked why it was not a permanent one.  For that, she said, I had to fill a form to apply. 

And the form would require me, a retiree, to fill in my employment income or submit my income tax returns. Sigh! Back to square one!

This whole saga clearly shows up the inflexibility of the bank.  Why is it treating all retirees the same way, even those who are Treasures members?
The message I get is this:  "Yes, deposit all your cash with us, but don't expect us to be reasonable with you."

I would equate this inflexibility to pure laziness and a total lack of initiative. Surely a quick check of a retiree's history with the bank and his background will instantly allow any manager worth his salt to make a fairly accurate assessment of the risk factor.

All of which makes me wonder:  If a bank that makes its living from being able to assess risks, and it is obviously unable to do so for a simple credit card case, what are the chances of it making it big in Asia???

I hope I am not being unfair in coming to this conclusion, but this is how I feel at the moment.