While reading the papers this morning, I was both heartened and saddened by some of the reports regarding the care for service in Singapore.
However, that gave me an idea to start a daily review of the cheerful and not-so-cheerful things that are happening around us (on condition that I am not away. ). So, here goes:
BOUQUET to Changi General Hospital for treating four-year-old American Julian Hanusz for a cut on his forehead. His father, Mark, was so impressed not only with the service but the fee ($85) as well. He wrote a letter to the Forum Page to express his gratitude.
Mark says "tears welled up in my eyes" because he had been charged $16,000 at the Mount Elizabeth Hospital for a "minor knee injury". He did not say when this took place.
They were going home after a holiday here when the boy had the accident at the airport.
BOO-QUET to SMRT for planning to phase out its fleet of 15 London cabs when their eight-year licences expire. This will deprive or restrict many disabled people who are wheelchair-bound commuters from getting around.
I wonder whether SMRT has tried talking to the Land Transport Authority to resolve the issue which is basically a question of profitability.
I also wonder what has happened to its Corporate Social Responsiblity!!!!
BOO-QUET to Samsung for mishandling a customer's phone when it was sent in for servicing. When account executive Nio Jian Qiang got it back last week, he found a stranger's private files in his phone.
Apparently, somebody else's miccroSD card was left in his phone. According to Samsung, the culprit was a former technician who had put in the card for testing.
The mystery is that the card was from a phone that was reported lost by a schoolboy in an Internet cafe in July. Samsung is investigating.
BOUQUET to National University Hospital and four other agencies for coming up with a scheme that takes community elderly care a big step forward.
Called the Singapore Programme for Integrated Care for the Elderly (Spice), the scheme, launched yesterday, brings service to the old folks' homes. For example, these people are given their baths and meals.
At the moment, most rehabilitation centres do not serve such people outside their premises.
The other four agencies involved in the project are: voluntary welfare group Sathya Sai Social Service, the Agency for Integrated Care, and two private medical groups --- Frontier Healthcare, which runs a chain of family clinics, and geriatricians from the Agewell Artsz Medical Group.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Rocks Urban Grill and Bar sucks, says Gin Nee
"Great food. Great taste. It rocks." --- that's the tagline Rocks Urban Grill and Bar at The Sail in Marina Bay uses to promote itself.
But as far as Gin Nee Goh is concerned, it sucks. This was after she was told off by the owner of the restaurant, Roxan Villareal, for cancelling her lunch booking for seven people yesterday.
Apparently, he did not care to listen to her reason for making the cancellation, which was made 30 minutes before the appointment.
After the scolding she received, Gin Nee wrote the following email to the restaurant to complain:
"I would like to provide feedback on a very negative and disapppointing encounter with your restaurant. I had made a reservation for seven people at your restaurant and unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances as a result of last-minute unavailability amongst the lunch party, had to cancel the reservation about half an hour before we were due to turn up for lunch.
"I had called the restaurant at the very first opportunity to cancel the reservation so that the restaurant would be able to release the table.
"During the call, I also apologised (very sincerely, I must add) for the cancellation. In turn, I received an extremely rude response rebuking me for cancelling last minute, and telling me I should never make another reservation at the restaurant with my name, and that I am not welcomed ever to dine at the restaurant.
"I am sure restaurants face frustration and inconvenience when customers fail to turn up at the last minute but this I believe, is part and parcel of operating in the restaurant industry, and should never warrant the customer having to suffer such a rude response.
"This, I also believe, applies even to the highly acclaimed restaurants. Also, a restaurant situated in the financial hub and being one of the options for client lunches should be flexible enough to understand that professionals like us very often do not have control over our own schedules and inevitably get called up for last-minute meetings etc which ensue in client lunches then getting cancelled.
"The treatment I received was highly unprofessional (despite the effort I took to actually call the restuarant to inform of the cancellation) and is the worst experience I have ever encountered with a restaurant, be it dining with clients or on a personal basis.
"So now that my client lunch is rescheduled, I would need to make another lunch booking, but I would definitely take your advice to never ever step into your restaurant again. P/s: There is no lack of good restaurants in Singapore where I am certain I would be more than welcomed."
Instead of getting an apology for the appallingly rude encounter, Gin Nee was shocked when she received an email respomse from the owner Villareal himself, all written in caps no less:
"AS THE OWNER AND PERSON THAT REPLIED TO YOU YOU SHOULD BE ASHAME OF WRITING SUCH
"THE RUDE ONE OBVIOUSLY IS YOU . BECAUSE OF SUCH BEHAVIOUR RESTAURANT IN THIS LOVELY CITY WILL HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL AND ASKING FOR UNREFUNDABLE DEPOSIT . GOOD LUCK Yours faithfully, Roxan Villareal".
To this, Gin Nee coolly replied: "Truly disappointed that the lovely people in MY lovely country have to put up with an attitude like that. It's a good thing we have choices. Such un-lovely attitude has no place here. Would strongly recommend that Mr Villareal tries a new dish - humble pie."
Indeed!!!
But as far as Gin Nee Goh is concerned, it sucks. This was after she was told off by the owner of the restaurant, Roxan Villareal, for cancelling her lunch booking for seven people yesterday.
Apparently, he did not care to listen to her reason for making the cancellation, which was made 30 minutes before the appointment.
After the scolding she received, Gin Nee wrote the following email to the restaurant to complain:
"I would like to provide feedback on a very negative and disapppointing encounter with your restaurant. I had made a reservation for seven people at your restaurant and unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances as a result of last-minute unavailability amongst the lunch party, had to cancel the reservation about half an hour before we were due to turn up for lunch.
"I had called the restaurant at the very first opportunity to cancel the reservation so that the restaurant would be able to release the table.
"During the call, I also apologised (very sincerely, I must add) for the cancellation. In turn, I received an extremely rude response rebuking me for cancelling last minute, and telling me I should never make another reservation at the restaurant with my name, and that I am not welcomed ever to dine at the restaurant.
"I am sure restaurants face frustration and inconvenience when customers fail to turn up at the last minute but this I believe, is part and parcel of operating in the restaurant industry, and should never warrant the customer having to suffer such a rude response.
"This, I also believe, applies even to the highly acclaimed restaurants. Also, a restaurant situated in the financial hub and being one of the options for client lunches should be flexible enough to understand that professionals like us very often do not have control over our own schedules and inevitably get called up for last-minute meetings etc which ensue in client lunches then getting cancelled.
"The treatment I received was highly unprofessional (despite the effort I took to actually call the restuarant to inform of the cancellation) and is the worst experience I have ever encountered with a restaurant, be it dining with clients or on a personal basis.
"So now that my client lunch is rescheduled, I would need to make another lunch booking, but I would definitely take your advice to never ever step into your restaurant again. P/s: There is no lack of good restaurants in Singapore where I am certain I would be more than welcomed."
Instead of getting an apology for the appallingly rude encounter, Gin Nee was shocked when she received an email respomse from the owner Villareal himself, all written in caps no less:
"AS THE OWNER AND PERSON THAT REPLIED TO YOU YOU SHOULD BE ASHAME OF WRITING SUCH
"THE RUDE ONE OBVIOUSLY IS YOU . BECAUSE OF SUCH BEHAVIOUR RESTAURANT IN THIS LOVELY CITY WILL HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL AND ASKING FOR UNREFUNDABLE DEPOSIT . GOOD LUCK Yours faithfully, Roxan Villareal".
To this, Gin Nee coolly replied: "Truly disappointed that the lovely people in MY lovely country have to put up with an attitude like that. It's a good thing we have choices. Such un-lovely attitude has no place here. Would strongly recommend that Mr Villareal tries a new dish - humble pie."
Indeed!!!
Monday, October 17, 2011
It's only words, DBS
The turnover of relationship managers must be very high at DBS Bank. Every few months I would receive a letter from the bank to inform me that I have a new RM.
I really do not mind the change, knowing that the economy is still humming and opportunities for such personnel abound. So it is to be expected that they will be moving around to gather as much hay as they can while the sun is still shining.
But what I find rather annoying is that in the letter that I receive, there will invariably be a sentence to say that the new RM "will be in touch with you soon."
My experience has been that these RMs never do. My guess is that they consider me "a waste of time" because I have stopped buying any of its products and I do not do any kind of trading through the bank.
I hope the bank would just send me an SMS to inform me of the change in RM and not waste time and money sending me that standard letter.
I really do not mind the change, knowing that the economy is still humming and opportunities for such personnel abound. So it is to be expected that they will be moving around to gather as much hay as they can while the sun is still shining.
But what I find rather annoying is that in the letter that I receive, there will invariably be a sentence to say that the new RM "will be in touch with you soon."
My experience has been that these RMs never do. My guess is that they consider me "a waste of time" because I have stopped buying any of its products and I do not do any kind of trading through the bank.
I hope the bank would just send me an SMS to inform me of the change in RM and not waste time and money sending me that standard letter.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Watery lollies from Cold Storage leave Lucia hot and bothered
Blogger Auntie Lucia alerted me yesterday to a post she wrote about how ice lollies she had bought from Cold Storage's Chancery Lane outlet turned out to be a watery mess.
Reading that, I guess one would think that such lollies would be in that state anyway if left unrefrigerated for a period of time.
But Lucia says: "Nope, i ... didn’t leave the box (of lollies) lying around on the kitchen or dining table. It went straight into the freezer."
And she adds that she had not been carrying the box around for half a day.
"I live across the road from the Chancery Lane outlet and drove home right home after paying my bill at 15.14.56," she explains. "As I drove, not walk home, it was a bare 5-minute drive and hardly long enough for the lollies to have melted."
At around 4pm, when her mum’s helper Siti went to the freezer to get a lolly for mum, she found on opening the box, that "each and every one was lembek or soft."
Unconvinced, Lucia checked and "sure enough, every lolly was soft, clearly having melted since don’t know when within their wrappers and the box they came in."
Her first reaction was to throw the whole pack away and forget about the $4.85 she had paid for it, remembering at the back of her mind what a nephew once said: “Your time is so cheap meh!”
However, on second thoughts, she decided "not to let Cold Storage get away with it" and, armed with the pack of melted ice lollies, drove back to Cold Storage across the road.
At Cold Storage, she "was somewhat mollified by the carpark lady guard who on hearing that I’d come to return “bad food” allowed me to get into the carpark without paying the mandatory $1.50 parking fee. At least she empathised with my having to make a return trip."
She bristles: "Indeed, had my reception at the supermarket been as acommodating, I might not have written this post at all.
"But no, the supervisor I spoke to and showed my unacceptable purchase to said with a deadpan face:'Ok, you go and get another box.'
"No word of apology. No pleasantries. Nothing. And she wasn’t even serving another customer.
"Actually when I set out, I had intended an exchange. But her take-it-or-leave-it attitude invited me to leave it so I said: 'No, I want a refund.'
"To which she replied: 'Did you pay by card or cash?'
"As I fumbled in my wallet for the receipt, she repeated her question, deadpan.
“ 'Card,' I said, still fumbling for the receipt.
“ 'Just give me the card.'
"I did as instructed, even though by then I had found the receipt and proffered it and which she ignored.
"The refund went through at 16.12.25."
Lucia says the lollies she bought was "not a First Choice brand but an F & N brand, so you might say the fault lay with the manaufacturers." But as the supermarket distributing the lollies, she thinks Cold Storage has a duty to ensure that the stuff it sells is edible.
This was not Lucia's first encounter with Cold Storage. The first was in June when she discovered that its weighing machine was faulty. I had published her complaint in my blog and the supermarket duly contacted her to do damage control.
Moral of this latest encounter, she says is that "I should have learnt my lesson and give the Chancery Lane outlet a miss."
But its nearness to her home is Lucia's " Archilles' heel". "So serves me right for going there again and again, despite the overcharging and indifferent service," she sighs.
Reading that, I guess one would think that such lollies would be in that state anyway if left unrefrigerated for a period of time.
But Lucia says: "Nope, i ... didn’t leave the box (of lollies) lying around on the kitchen or dining table. It went straight into the freezer."
And she adds that she had not been carrying the box around for half a day.
"I live across the road from the Chancery Lane outlet and drove home right home after paying my bill at 15.14.56," she explains. "As I drove, not walk home, it was a bare 5-minute drive and hardly long enough for the lollies to have melted."
At around 4pm, when her mum’s helper Siti went to the freezer to get a lolly for mum, she found on opening the box, that "each and every one was lembek or soft."
Unconvinced, Lucia checked and "sure enough, every lolly was soft, clearly having melted since don’t know when within their wrappers and the box they came in."
Her first reaction was to throw the whole pack away and forget about the $4.85 she had paid for it, remembering at the back of her mind what a nephew once said: “Your time is so cheap meh!”
However, on second thoughts, she decided "not to let Cold Storage get away with it" and, armed with the pack of melted ice lollies, drove back to Cold Storage across the road.
At Cold Storage, she "was somewhat mollified by the carpark lady guard who on hearing that I’d come to return “bad food” allowed me to get into the carpark without paying the mandatory $1.50 parking fee. At least she empathised with my having to make a return trip."
She bristles: "Indeed, had my reception at the supermarket been as acommodating, I might not have written this post at all.
"But no, the supervisor I spoke to and showed my unacceptable purchase to said with a deadpan face:'Ok, you go and get another box.'
"No word of apology. No pleasantries. Nothing. And she wasn’t even serving another customer.
"Actually when I set out, I had intended an exchange. But her take-it-or-leave-it attitude invited me to leave it so I said: 'No, I want a refund.'
"To which she replied: 'Did you pay by card or cash?'
"As I fumbled in my wallet for the receipt, she repeated her question, deadpan.
“ 'Card,' I said, still fumbling for the receipt.
“ 'Just give me the card.'
"I did as instructed, even though by then I had found the receipt and proffered it and which she ignored.
"The refund went through at 16.12.25."
Lucia says the lollies she bought was "not a First Choice brand but an F & N brand, so you might say the fault lay with the manaufacturers." But as the supermarket distributing the lollies, she thinks Cold Storage has a duty to ensure that the stuff it sells is edible.
This was not Lucia's first encounter with Cold Storage. The first was in June when she discovered that its weighing machine was faulty. I had published her complaint in my blog and the supermarket duly contacted her to do damage control.
Moral of this latest encounter, she says is that "I should have learnt my lesson and give the Chancery Lane outlet a miss."
But its nearness to her home is Lucia's " Archilles' heel". "So serves me right for going there again and again, despite the overcharging and indifferent service," she sighs.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Pickpocket takes Heidi's mobile; telco penalises her
Undergrad Heidi Tan's mobile phone was pickpocketed at Raffles City last Saturday. She made a police report and promptly went to Singtel to get a replacement phone.
That was when her disillusionment with the telco started. Her friend told her about my blog and she emailed me this story...
"A most unfortunate incident happened to me last Saturday, and Singtel just had to make it worse with their unsympathetic response.
"I lost my phone last Saturday. In fact, I got pickpocketed at Raffles City, no less. Unfortunately, even though they were caught on CCTV, I did not manage to catch them in time. Hence, a police report was made, and it was classified as theft.
"So, I set about to get a replacement phone. I got my replacement sim card without any problems. However, I was told by the woman at Hello shop Singtel building branch that even though it was a theft, I had yet to fulfil 21 months of contractual obligations, and thus I still had to pay $300 to renew my contract, under the 12-month upgrade.
"She said that I could call the 1688 customer service number to try and get a waiver. Following Monday, my father called on my behalf. He was informed that the manager would call him back either that night, or the next morning.
"However, we received no calls. Finally, my father made another call to Singtel. It seems that the manager had no intention to call him at all.
"After much persistence, my father only managed to talk to the supervisor. The supervisor was of no help at all, giving us a negative response right from the start.
"In fact, the supervisor offered us a waiver of one-month subscription fees. Yet, his subordinate had actually offered us a waiver of three months subscription fees!
"It seemed pretty apparent at that moment that the protocol for handling waivers were, to say the least, pretty laissez-faire. My father was fuming. He thought it was ridiculous that after waiting till the next day for a call, the customer service manager thought that his matter was too trivial, or thought it beneath himself/herself to speak to a customer.
"Either way, it did not make a lot of business sense. And my father just insisted that I terminate the line and pay the early termination charges.
"Hence, I called them personally to say I would like to terminate the line. The caller on the other line, upon my request, was only interested to know if I knew that there was a charge for early termination, and whether I was intending to pay it.
"Absolutely no questions asked about reason for termination, and no attempt to retain the customer. I was crushed.
"Assuming that there were no excess charges, I was paying them $62 a month. What am I, to them? Just another customer?
"My boyfriend, feeling all apologetic for persuading me to take up a Singtel line, decided to draft an email for me to send to them. Maybe an email will work, he said. Telephone operators sometimes just do not know better.
"Just for a better chance, I sent my mail to two different addresses. Both came back after a day. The first one, was this...
"Dear Ms Tan,
Thank you for your email. We appreciate the concerns that you have highlighted. Unfortunately, we regret that we are unable to waive the $300 surcharge. Thank you for your support thus far and have a pleasant day."
Yes. That’s all. I typed a letter that was at least 10times as long as his reply. To a customer, it means “I really don’t care”. Or ctrl+c, ctrl+v. (That’s cut and paste, btw.) And may I ask how to enjoy a "pleasant day"?
The second reply....
"Dear Ms Tan,
Thank you for sharing your concern with us in your email of 11 October. We are sorry to hear that you have lost your mobile set. Our record under your line xxxxxxxxx indicates that it is currently eligible for the 12 months upgrade.
"It will be eligible for the 21 months upgrade from 6 June 2012. Under the 12 months upgrade program, the top-up charge of $300 is payable.
"In view of the price of the handsets sold to customers upon upgrade, we seek your kind understanding that we are not able to waive the top-up charge.
"Our record indicates that the line has an outstanding two years' contract which will expire on 8 Sept 2012. If the line is ceased, the gradated penalty of the set is payable.
"In view of that, please do consider retaining the line till the expiry of the contract. In view of that, we have not taken any action on the line till we hear from you again with your further instruction.
"Once again, Ms Tan, we apologise for the inconvenience and seek your kind understanding on this matter. Thank you for your support and have a pleasant day."
"This one is much longer. I acknowledge that she cared a little more. But then again, it was probably just a larger chunk of cut and paste. In the first half, policy regarding the 12 month upgrade was reiterated. In case they failed to realize, yes, we know the policy.
"If our action plan was something that was covered in policy, why would we go to such troubles to get it done? In my email, I mentioned the earlier part about no attempt being made to retain the customer.
"Good that she tried to do what her colleagues failed to. But retaining customer, because if you don’t, “the gradated penalty of the set is payable?” Is this customer care, may I ask? Or does customer threat sound more appropriate for their department?
"I’m appalled and disgusted to finally realise how insignificant we personal mobile line customers are to telcos, and also aghast at how low our service standards are, if the leading telco in Singapore’s service is anything to go by.
"While I understand that there are procedures to follow, shouldn't they review it on a case-by-case basis so that loyal subscribers like me, do not fall through the cracks, getting punished on top of getting pickpocketed?"
Heidi has taken a lot of trouble to vent her frustration. Let's hope Singtel listens to her problem again and waive the penalty.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Revamped SQ website continues to bug Anne Wong
Anne Wong emailed me her latest problem with Singapore Airlines' website on October 6 but I was busy and failed to read it... until now.
She had booked a flight to Hong Kong but the website "just will not let me change my booking". This is her story...
"Tonight (Oct 6), I attempted to change my flight, HKG-SIN on October 24, 2011 to October 16, 2011.
"But it was going to cost HK$382 more. When I continued, I was UNABLE to to go much further because my Krisflyer number was rejected.
"This is despite the name (Anne Wong Holloway) and number being EXACTLY the same with which I logged into the website for the transaction!
"The only reason I could give for this is that the boarding pass I printed out for my flight to HKG tomorrow morning carries this name: ANNE WONG PUI HUNG ELIZABETH.
"There is no logical reason for this name to be on my boarding pass because I changed this years ago (effected 2005 to be exact, when I got tired of having to fill in forms with such a long name including a Chinese name I never use. And had to make a conscious effort to respond when Elizabeth Wong was called!) and have been travelling with SQ boarding passes in the name of Anne Wong Holloway for years.
"My Krisflyer account has the correct name but the name on my boarding pass is way out of date.
"WHY? Because only a couple of weeks ago I emailed SQ to correct my address in Hong Kong as the website profile listed an address that has not been used for several years!
"But then, calling the Krisflyer number 6789 8188 was no help either; a polite woman listened to me, but without being able to show her the screen shots, she did not understand what I was trying to say.
"In the end she could only suggest I call the Hong Kong ticketing office tomorrow - by which time, with my luck vis a vis SIA, the fares would have gone up!
"Now please will someone help me and also give an affectionate kick on the backside to SQ's IT department for not hurrying up.
"If this had happened in America, the airline would have suffered financially because it isn't as close and convenient to get to any airline office as it is in Asian cities. And people in Asia do not rely as heavily on airline web sites as abroad."
I hope Anne managed to sort out her problems. Meanwhile, the woes of the SQ revamped website remains.... So much for "It's a great way to fly."
She had booked a flight to Hong Kong but the website "just will not let me change my booking". This is her story...
"Tonight (Oct 6), I attempted to change my flight, HKG-SIN on October 24, 2011 to October 16, 2011.
"But it was going to cost HK$382 more. When I continued, I was UNABLE to to go much further because my Krisflyer number was rejected.
"This is despite the name (Anne Wong Holloway) and number being EXACTLY the same with which I logged into the website for the transaction!
"The only reason I could give for this is that the boarding pass I printed out for my flight to HKG tomorrow morning carries this name: ANNE WONG PUI HUNG ELIZABETH.
"There is no logical reason for this name to be on my boarding pass because I changed this years ago (effected 2005 to be exact, when I got tired of having to fill in forms with such a long name including a Chinese name I never use. And had to make a conscious effort to respond when Elizabeth Wong was called!) and have been travelling with SQ boarding passes in the name of Anne Wong Holloway for years.
"My Krisflyer account has the correct name but the name on my boarding pass is way out of date.
"WHY? Because only a couple of weeks ago I emailed SQ to correct my address in Hong Kong as the website profile listed an address that has not been used for several years!
"But then, calling the Krisflyer number 6789 8188 was no help either; a polite woman listened to me, but without being able to show her the screen shots, she did not understand what I was trying to say.
"In the end she could only suggest I call the Hong Kong ticketing office tomorrow - by which time, with my luck vis a vis SIA, the fares would have gone up!
"Now please will someone help me and also give an affectionate kick on the backside to SQ's IT department for not hurrying up.
"If this had happened in America, the airline would have suffered financially because it isn't as close and convenient to get to any airline office as it is in Asian cities. And people in Asia do not rely as heavily on airline web sites as abroad."
I hope Anne managed to sort out her problems. Meanwhile, the woes of the SQ revamped website remains.... So much for "It's a great way to fly."
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Hilarious --- Irene's experience with Starhub service
Starhub customer Irene Hoe must be totally exasperated with the service provided by the telco.
If you were to count the number of times she has experienced "non-existing" service from the telco, you would begin to appreciate her frustration.
The latest happened late last month after she sent the following message to Starhub:
"Subject: Book 592001 # front of porch
Yesterday morning, I tried three or four times to send this message.
Each time, I received this message in return "Resource unavaiable".
What was the problem?
Was this a BlackBerry problem or a Starhub problem?
Irene Hoe
Xingapore Ink
------ SMS ------
To: 71222
Sent: Jul 28, 2011 09:51
Subject: Book 592001 # front of porch
Book 592001 # front of porch "
What followed was not only hilarous, it would also make a superb case study for those in the communications and service industries.
Enjoy the exchange:
On 29 July 2011 12:08, StarHub wrote to Irene:
"Hi Irene Hoe,
Thank you for contacting StarHub Blackberry Helpdesk.
The sms format that you tried to send is to
http://www.frontporchbooks.com/
We tried sending with the same format and to the same number but we do not received the same error on our end.
Instead we received an error: SMS format was incorrect.
Please check from the vendor as this is neither StarHub or Blackberry
problem.
Should problem persist, please reply with your contact details for us to
call back and assist you further.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
NURUL
StarHub Ltd
Customer Service, Technical Helpdesk
Moments later, Irene replied:
"Subject: Re: Book 592001 # front of porch
Nurul,
PLEASE READ MESSAGES WITH CARE.
Why did I write that in caps? Because you clearly did not read my message to Starhub with due care.
NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY, TOO.
I did not try to contact an online bookstore.
The addressee of the SMS message I sent, which was bounced with the error message RESOURCE UNAVAILABLE was Comfort Delgro.
I often send the SAME message to the SAME number.
I sent the SAME message this morning and got the taxi I had requested. The problem happened the day before.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME SO FAR?
What I do not understand is how you managed to deduce that I tried to SMS an online bookstore.
I must therefore conclude, Nurul, that it is eminently possible that you are a computer that has been wrongly programmed.
In which case, the time I have spent writing this message has been in vain.
In the event that you are not a computer, I suggest that it would be a darned good idea for you to spend more care and time reading a customer's email before you jump to odd conclusions.
Of course, it may be that this really is not part of your job and you were only doing a colleague a favour, and your real work lies someplace other than answering the queries of customers.
Irene Hoe
Xingapore Ink
(In case there is a doubt, this message was written by a real human being and not a computer) "
Less than an hour later, Nurul wrote back:
"Hi Ms Irene,
Please accept my sincere apologies for the initial response to your email and we do appreciate your clarification on the matter.
Regarding the error message: Resource Unavailable, that you have experienced when you used ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222), we have escalated the case to our Network Engineers for further analysis. We will share their findings with you upon receiving their reply.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Best Regards,
NURUL
StarHub Ltd
Starhub followed this up with another reply from its Technical Helpdesk
later in the day:
"Dear Ms Irene,
We have checked the prepaid cards under your account: 81160122, 91617892 and 91028813. However there are no SMS records sent to 71222 that we can see since there is no cost deducted from your prepaid wallet for the transaction. May we verify the mobile number that you have used for the ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222) please?
Thank you.
Regards
Roy Looi
StarHub Ltd
Customer Service, Technical Helpdesk
Irene replied to inform the telco that the SMS was from her BlackBerry,
NOT from her prepaid cards.
The following day, 30 July, Nurul wrote:
"Hi Ms Irene,
Based from trace yesterday for mobile number 90111949, a sms was sent to 71222001 at 10:21hrs and another sms to 71222002 at 22:06hrs without any error.
We are still checking with our Network Engineers for further analysis. We will update you again."
At this stage, I could feel the increasing frustration from Irene when
she replied:
"Sigh. The problem did NOT happen yesterday.
Please read the original email.
I just wanted to know WHY the messages that day, NOT yesterday, did not go through."
Shortly after, Nurul wrote to apologise, claiming it was a "typo error".
Then on 3 August, Roy Looi of Starhub sent Irene an email to tell her about the possible causes...
"Hi Ms Irene
Our SMSC Network Engineers and RIM have updated us on the reported error message that you have encountered on your BlackBerry handset.
From their findings, we see that there could be several causes to the error message: Resource Unavailable as displayed on your BlackBerry handset whenever you are unable to send a SMS to the ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222).
These possible causes are as follows,
1. Your device is temporarily out of range and thus does not have sufficient network coverage to send SMS at the location. Hence the BlackBerry handset would reflect the error message since the mobile network is not available at that particular instance. Once the handset is re-connected to the mobile network, the SMS will be sent successfully. As shared previously, our SMSC Engineers verified that there are no records of any SMS sent out to 71222 on 28 July 11. Therefore the SMS would have remained unsent in your phone and so did not reach our mobile network.
To resolve this, please move to another location with better network coverage or wait for your BlackBerry device to come back online. Alternatively, you may toggle the Mobile Service of your BlackBerry Off/On to re-establish network connection manually.
2. There is network coverage but the network may be out of capacity at that instance. However this is unlikely as the frequency spectrum allocated for each planned cell is more than adequate for sending SMS. We will agree that the error message: Resource Unavailable, is generated by the handset rather than the network since network alarm error messages (which is also a different error message) will not be sent to customer’s handsets.
3. The error message was returned by the vendor’s i.e ComfortDelgro’s SMS service.
As these findings remain inconclusive, RIM is requesting for your BlackBerry handset event logs for their review and continued investigation. Please refer to the following link from RIM’s Knowledge Base which will assist you in extracting the event logs for your BlackBerry handset.
How to extract the event logs on a BlackBerry smartphone
http://btsc.webapps.blackberry.com/btsc/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=KB05349
This will help provide them with more information to determine the cause for the error message that you have encountered by your BlackBerry handset. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter."
Two days later, when Irene did not respond, Roy Looi wrote again:
"We have yet to hear from you.
"The RIM ticket opened for this case is INC000023409936. If you require assistance in extracting the log file for your BlackBerry handset, please provide us with a contact number (preferably a land line) and a convenient time for us to reach you."
When Irene finally responded, she was obviously in a foul mood.
She said:
"Roy, I am no geek.
I haven't the slightest idea what a log file is or how it is extracted or from where it should be extracted.
I would imagine that 99 per cent of BlackBerry users would be in the same position.
All I wanted, all I asked for - if anyone at Starhub really bothered to read what I wrote initially - was an explanation of how and why this failure happened.
Instead, your people began by saying it HADN'T happened. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the email trail.
After too many exchanges of useless email messages, your last but one message offered a possible explanation.
But not before Starhub had once again proved to me that customers finish last in your company's service sweepstakes.
Did I really say "service"? Well, I'm not sure it exists at all at Starhub.
This is not simply a reaction to this particular incident, but to my whole sorry history of Starhub.
You may consider this closed. For now."
Those of you from the communications and service industries may draw your own conclusions from all this. But one thing's for sure: Starhub has failed to nail down Irene's problem in the first instance and it could have it all sorted out easily with a simple telephone call to her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you were to count the number of times she has experienced "non-existing" service from the telco, you would begin to appreciate her frustration.
The latest happened late last month after she sent the following message to Starhub:
"Subject: Book 592001 # front of porch
Yesterday morning, I tried three or four times to send this message.
Each time, I received this message in return "Resource unavaiable".
What was the problem?
Was this a BlackBerry problem or a Starhub problem?
Irene Hoe
Xingapore Ink
------ SMS ------
To: 71222
Sent: Jul 28, 2011 09:51
Subject: Book 592001 # front of porch
Book 592001 # front of porch "
What followed was not only hilarous, it would also make a superb case study for those in the communications and service industries.
Enjoy the exchange:
On 29 July 2011 12:08, StarHub wrote to Irene:
"Hi Irene Hoe,
Thank you for contacting StarHub Blackberry Helpdesk.
The sms format that you tried to send is to
http://www.frontporchbooks.com/
We tried sending with the same format and to the same number but we do not received the same error on our end.
Instead we received an error: SMS format was incorrect.
Please check from the vendor as this is neither StarHub or Blackberry
problem.
Should problem persist, please reply with your contact details for us to
call back and assist you further.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
NURUL
StarHub Ltd
Customer Service, Technical Helpdesk
Moments later, Irene replied:
"Subject: Re: Book 592001 # front of porch
Nurul,
PLEASE READ MESSAGES WITH CARE.
Why did I write that in caps? Because you clearly did not read my message to Starhub with due care.
NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY, TOO.
I did not try to contact an online bookstore.
The addressee of the SMS message I sent, which was bounced with the error message RESOURCE UNAVAILABLE was Comfort Delgro.
I often send the SAME message to the SAME number.
I sent the SAME message this morning and got the taxi I had requested. The problem happened the day before.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME SO FAR?
What I do not understand is how you managed to deduce that I tried to SMS an online bookstore.
I must therefore conclude, Nurul, that it is eminently possible that you are a computer that has been wrongly programmed.
In which case, the time I have spent writing this message has been in vain.
In the event that you are not a computer, I suggest that it would be a darned good idea for you to spend more care and time reading a customer's email before you jump to odd conclusions.
Of course, it may be that this really is not part of your job and you were only doing a colleague a favour, and your real work lies someplace other than answering the queries of customers.
Irene Hoe
Xingapore Ink
(In case there is a doubt, this message was written by a real human being and not a computer) "
Less than an hour later, Nurul wrote back:
"Hi Ms Irene,
Please accept my sincere apologies for the initial response to your email and we do appreciate your clarification on the matter.
Regarding the error message: Resource Unavailable, that you have experienced when you used ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222), we have escalated the case to our Network Engineers for further analysis. We will share their findings with you upon receiving their reply.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Best Regards,
NURUL
StarHub Ltd
Starhub followed this up with another reply from its Technical Helpdesk
later in the day:
"Dear Ms Irene,
We have checked the prepaid cards under your account: 81160122, 91617892 and 91028813. However there are no SMS records sent to 71222 that we can see since there is no cost deducted from your prepaid wallet for the transaction. May we verify the mobile number that you have used for the ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222) please?
Thank you.
Regards
Roy Looi
StarHub Ltd
Customer Service, Technical Helpdesk
Irene replied to inform the telco that the SMS was from her BlackBerry,
NOT from her prepaid cards.
The following day, 30 July, Nurul wrote:
"Hi Ms Irene,
Based from trace yesterday for mobile number 90111949, a sms was sent to 71222001 at 10:21hrs and another sms to 71222002 at 22:06hrs without any error.
We are still checking with our Network Engineers for further analysis. We will update you again."
At this stage, I could feel the increasing frustration from Irene when
she replied:
"Sigh. The problem did NOT happen yesterday.
Please read the original email.
I just wanted to know WHY the messages that day, NOT yesterday, did not go through."
Shortly after, Nurul wrote to apologise, claiming it was a "typo error".
Then on 3 August, Roy Looi of Starhub sent Irene an email to tell her about the possible causes...
"Hi Ms Irene
Our SMSC Network Engineers and RIM have updated us on the reported error message that you have encountered on your BlackBerry handset.
From their findings, we see that there could be several causes to the error message: Resource Unavailable as displayed on your BlackBerry handset whenever you are unable to send a SMS to the ComfortDelGro's SMS taxi booking service (SMS-A-Cab: 71222).
These possible causes are as follows,
1. Your device is temporarily out of range and thus does not have sufficient network coverage to send SMS at the location. Hence the BlackBerry handset would reflect the error message since the mobile network is not available at that particular instance. Once the handset is re-connected to the mobile network, the SMS will be sent successfully. As shared previously, our SMSC Engineers verified that there are no records of any SMS sent out to 71222 on 28 July 11. Therefore the SMS would have remained unsent in your phone and so did not reach our mobile network.
To resolve this, please move to another location with better network coverage or wait for your BlackBerry device to come back online. Alternatively, you may toggle the Mobile Service of your BlackBerry Off/On to re-establish network connection manually.
2. There is network coverage but the network may be out of capacity at that instance. However this is unlikely as the frequency spectrum allocated for each planned cell is more than adequate for sending SMS. We will agree that the error message: Resource Unavailable, is generated by the handset rather than the network since network alarm error messages (which is also a different error message) will not be sent to customer’s handsets.
3. The error message was returned by the vendor’s i.e ComfortDelgro’s SMS service.
As these findings remain inconclusive, RIM is requesting for your BlackBerry handset event logs for their review and continued investigation. Please refer to the following link from RIM’s Knowledge Base which will assist you in extracting the event logs for your BlackBerry handset.
How to extract the event logs on a BlackBerry smartphone
http://btsc.webapps.blackberry.com/btsc/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=KB05349
This will help provide them with more information to determine the cause for the error message that you have encountered by your BlackBerry handset. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter."
Two days later, when Irene did not respond, Roy Looi wrote again:
"We have yet to hear from you.
"The RIM ticket opened for this case is INC000023409936. If you require assistance in extracting the log file for your BlackBerry handset, please provide us with a contact number (preferably a land line) and a convenient time for us to reach you."
When Irene finally responded, she was obviously in a foul mood.
She said:
"Roy, I am no geek.
I haven't the slightest idea what a log file is or how it is extracted or from where it should be extracted.
I would imagine that 99 per cent of BlackBerry users would be in the same position.
All I wanted, all I asked for - if anyone at Starhub really bothered to read what I wrote initially - was an explanation of how and why this failure happened.
Instead, your people began by saying it HADN'T happened. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the email trail.
After too many exchanges of useless email messages, your last but one message offered a possible explanation.
But not before Starhub had once again proved to me that customers finish last in your company's service sweepstakes.
Did I really say "service"? Well, I'm not sure it exists at all at Starhub.
This is not simply a reaction to this particular incident, but to my whole sorry history of Starhub.
You may consider this closed. For now."
Those of you from the communications and service industries may draw your own conclusions from all this. But one thing's for sure: Starhub has failed to nail down Irene's problem in the first instance and it could have it all sorted out easily with a simple telephone call to her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)