The Way Companies Reply to Forum Articles Nowadays

[vince123123]

Check out the way Singtel replies to complaints. This appears to be standard modus operandi and combines the various stock replies comprising the following:

1. Saying they contacted the writer and resolved the problem (but not saying how it is resolved or what explanation is given).

2. Quoting raw data and facts and figures.

3. Quoting their textbook company policies and content information.

In this case, they combined both (1) and (3).

The impression given is that nothing is amiss, and that the complaint is groundless. They maintain that Singtel's position is this and that, and is nothing wrong at all.

Under the table, we don't know what Singtel's explanation is for the lapse experienced by Mr Teo, or whether they offered some compensation to keep it hush hush.

These days, when I write to the Forum, I make sure that I decline speaking to the companies (ST will call me to ask whether they can release my information as the company wants to speak to me) as I don't want them to have the satisfaction of saying "We have contacted so and so and resolved the problem, or explained the procedures".

One time when I just delayed responding, the company published a letter (after running out of patience) and could not say that "we contacted so and so".

Dad billed for 'not responding to decline mysterious service'
I WOULD like to share my father's experience with SingTel, as well as to seek a satisfactory answer to the issue.
In the past three months, SingTel billed my father for a certain service from a content provider, Pitch, for a service he didn't use, and definitely one we all had no idea of.

In the first month, August, $6 was charged to the account for a 'content download'. We had no idea what this was and called the SingTel customer service to address it. We were just told to call the service provider ourselves as 'SingTel was just collecting on behalf of this provider'.

We were unable to contact the service provider and thought to let the matter pass since we thought it was just a one-time incident.

In September, another $18 was charged to the account from the same service provider for the same purpose.

This time, we called SingTel, demanding a refund of this mysterious service charge which my father definitely did not use. The customer service officer, Christine, explained that this service came from a text message which my father 'did not reply to say that he did not want the service, and hence he was automatically registered as a member'. Due to our insistence, she agreed to 'waive' the amount only for September, and cancelled the 'subscription' on our behalf. A message from the service provider indicating the cancelled subscription was received by my father on Sept 28.

However, for this month of October, yet another $6 was charged for the same purpose, and the previous month's $18 was not refunded as agreed by SingTel's customer service officer.

Since when are the customers deemed to have accepted the subscription of a service provider who sent an SMS just because they did not reply to the message to say that they did not want the service?

How are consumers protected?

Shirlene Teo Hui Ling (Ms)

Oct 31, 2007
Why does SingTel push the role of resolving billing problems to the subscriber?
I REFER to the letter, 'Dad billed for not responding to decline mysterious service' (Online forum, Oct 29).

The writer said that SingTel's customer service informed her that she had to call the service provider to resolve the problem because SingTel was just collecting on behalf of the provider.

I find this answer very disturbing.

SingTel is effectively saying to its subscribers: 'I do not care who billed you. So long as someone asked me to do so, I will do so. If it is not correct, it is for you to go and resolve it with that party.'

Should the correct approach not be that if a subscriber informs SingTel of a disputed bill, it would be SingTel's role to remove that amount from the bill and resolve it with the party who instructed the billing? Is this not what all credit-card companies do if there is a disputed bill? What right does SingTel have to push the role of resolving the issue to the subscriber?

Goh Khee Kuan

Customers not charged for receiving marketing messages by content providers: SingTel
WE REFER to the letters, 'Dad billed for not responding to decline mysterious service' by Ms Shirlene Teo Hui Ling (Online forum, Oct 30) and 'Why does SingTel push the role of resolving billing problems to the subscriber?' by Mr Goh Khee Kuan (Online forum, Oct 31).
We have since contacted Ms Teo's father to explain the charges applicable for his subscription and download charges for content service - Pitch. The matter has been resolved.

Customers are not charged for receiving SMSes on their mobile phones, including marketing messages by content providers. We would like to clarify that today when customers receive such SMSes, they are not automatically 'signed up' even if they do not respond to these messages.

Customers would usually be charged a subscription if they accept an offer by replying to the content provider via an SMS or by visiting the content provider's website to download contents. To cancel a subscription, customers need to inform the content provider in the manner set out by it.

In these instances, SingTel is a billing agent and bills customers on behalf of the content providers. Our current practice complies with the guidelines in IDA's new code of practice for Premium Rate Service Providers. This includes printing the contact numbers and details of the content providers on our bill. While the dispute relates to the charges levied by the content providers, we assist our customers by highlighting their case with the respective content provider and tracking the progress on their behalf.

We thank Ms Teo and Mr Goh for their feedback.

Cheam Tze Hui (Ms)

Corporate Communications Manager

SingTel

 

[garou12]

Check out the way Singtel replies to complaints. This appears to be standard modus operandi and combines the various stock replies comprising the following:

1. Saying they contacted the writer and resolved the problem (but not saying how it is resolved or what explanation is given).

2. Quoting raw data and facts and figures.

3. Quoting their textbook company policies and content information.

In this case, they combined both (1) and (3).

The impression given is that nothing is amiss, and that the complaint is groundless. They maintain that Singtel's position is this and that, and is nothing wrong at all.

Under the table, we don't know what Singtel's explanation is for the lapse experienced by Mr Teo, or whether they offered some compensation to keep it hush hush.

These days, when I write to the Forum, I make sure that I decline speaking to the companies (ST will call me to ask whether they can release my information as the company wants to speak to me) as I don't want them to have the satisfaction of saying "We have contacted so and so and resolved the problem, or explained the procedures".

One time when I just delayed responding, the company published a letter (after running out of patience) and could not say that "we contacted so and so".

In some ways this reminds me of that KFC complaint that people had here a while ago. :sweat:

 

[auron]

standard c drive faq answer extracted from their PR dept.

 

[vince123123]

Which KFC complaint was that?

In some ways this reminds me of that KFC complaint that people had here a while ago. :sweat:

 

[garou12]

Which KFC complaint was that?

people were complaining about the shrinking size of the chicken as well as the fact that the meat seemed to be freezer burnt meat.

 

[vince123123]

Oh, and how did KFC reply back?

 

[garou12]

Oh, and how did KFC reply back?

same text book answer...search for kfc here someone posted the robotic answer they received for their complaint.

 

[lovells19]

I LOVE SINGTEL!!

Cancelled everything I ever subscribed with them