Why complaints are good for business

Although I have no problem with complaining about goods and services, I find it difficult to complain about food prepared from me because this is so subjective. Where there is clear evidence of a problem, such as excessive delays, dirty cutlery (a problem that has largely disappeared) and cold plates, I am happy to make a polite comment.

One of the best ways for takeaways and restaurants to demonstrate commitment to their customers is to display their FSA food hygiene rating prominently and use this on advertising and websites.

I complained to Which? about a kettle that came very low in the ‘best buy’ table being sold with a ‘which best brand’ label on it. My wife bought it because of the Which? endorsement. Which? vigorously and unrepentantly defended their endorsement saying that their readers understood what the label meant. Pah!

Forget guarantees – the Sale of Good Act says that goods should be durable – that is, they should last, what a fair-minded person would consider, a reasonable length of time. While we wait, optimistically, for manufacturers to provide long guarantees, I have repeatedly asked Which? why they seem to ignore providing members with help to use the durability requirement when making a claim. Publishing “reasonable lifetimes” for goods and appropriate paperwork templates might help? If it is an unworkable solution then perhaps they could tell us why.

Alistair – I have been pushing for extended warranties for some time because few people seem to exercise their rights under the Sale of Goods Act. From personal experience and discussion with others, it can be a real challenge to achieve success.

One of the problems with offering decent warranties is that the amount of use can vary greatly. A family with six kids will use a washing machine more than a single person. I believe the solution is to fit a device to record the number of hours or washing cycles. Then it is easy to offer a manufacturers warranty for ten years or a certain number of hours/cycles. This is what car manufacturers do when they give a warranty of 100,000 miles or 3 years.

Laptops already record the number of charge cycles and manufacturers use this information in deciding if a battery is faulty. I would suggest a warranty of 3 years or 1000 cycles would be an appropriate warranty period.

We need to have a system that protects both the consumer and the manufacturer. Decent warranties could provide the customer with protection where the Sale of Goods Act has failed.

Alistair, I agree. A warranty should cover total repair or replacement but is subject to the manufacturers conditions. We need protection for the whole of what should be a “reasonable life” for the product. If we are unfortunate enough to have bought one with a latent defect, or one of defective design or with poor-quality components, then we should not end up out-of-pocket. For most manufacturers this should not be a problem – they already make well-designed and durable products. For others it should persuade them to pay more attention to detail and quality.

A Sale of Goods Act is essential to give us ultimate protection from loss when a defective product (whether in quality or design) is supplied. The Act has not failed, we just don’t normally appear to have the information to make proper use of it. Why Which? does not comment on repeated requests as to why it cannot help I do not know. It is in a foremost position with its European partners to put times on “reasonable durability” for ranges of products with their combined experience and testing. Given this information, individual consumers would be better-placed to back up claims when they have failed products within their “reasonable life”. Such as the 19 month-old fridge freezer, Kindle failures just after 1 year, and so on from previous conversationalists. If the Act is unworkable, perhaps Which? would explain why.

I wouldn’t hold your breath while waiting for long warranties – I don’t know of any moves in the pipeline to bring these to fruition – but does anyone else?

Beryl, if you complain in person remember that the person you are dealing with is likely to be just like you – not some sort of ogre. They are probably just as uncomfortable that a complaint needs to made as you feel in having to make one. Providing we complain in a pleasant, calm and rational way – whether verbally or in writing – I have found I usually get a reasonable response. It is when we start off with an unpleasant attitude, and demand more than is reasonable, that battle lines are drawn.

I agree Malcolm but sometimes sales assistants are not always authorised (or paid) to deal with complaints however rational or polite. I have found it more effective to complain at executive level who have a better knowledge of and carry more clout when dealing with company procedures, which often means putting it in writing.

To quote an example, I recently visited a restaurant/cafe in a well known departmental store with a friend for a coffee and a snack which turned out to be very poor value for money. My friend complained to the very pleasant and polite young lad who served us but he failed to act accordingly. I reminded my friend the lad was only adhering to company protocol in serving the food and the onus was on the store management for producing such an inadequate menu. When returning home she contacted the store management and as a result received an immediate apology and refund, something the young lad was not authorised to do.

I share your surprise. My own recent experience of interaction with Which? led to many unanswered questions. For an organisation that advocates active consumerism, Which? is remarkably reluctant to answer questions about its own activities.

Which? certainly does not like having it’s own tactics thrown back in its face.

Like you, Gary, I have used the Which? legal services on several occasion, and always found them to be very good. Your experience with both Which? and John Lewis give rise to some concern and – at the very least – Which? ought to have responded to you fully.

On a slightly different tangent, I am being encouraged to ‘register’ on this site. I tried, and was told my email and username already exist. Since on that basis it’s reasonable to assume that means I’m already registered, I have two questions:

1. Why invite me to register if I was already registered??
2. Why didn’t the prompts tell me I was registered instead of using the cumbersome ‘this email already exists’?

Ian, Thanks for your comment. To be clear, I didn’t use Which? Legal Services. Which? asked for help about Legal Expenses Insurance because they were investigating it following letters from members. I responded to that request with my story.

The last thing I expected was that a Which? recommended provider would hang me out to dry while they knew my claim to be valid. That’s bad enough. Extraordinary too that ‘consumer friendly’ John Lewis refuses to offer any explanation to accord with the direct evidence. What they have said leads to concerns that other policyholders may have received similar treatment.

Which? was investigating this with the diligence I’d expect, until the researcher said he would go back to JL with more questions. Immediately following that contact everything was dropped and Which? would no longer speak to me. What happened next troubles me greatly.

As a member of the controlling company for the past 25 years, I wrote to the trustees to express my concerns about matters of governance; not something I’ve ever done before, or would do lightly. As far as I’m aware the trustees have no knowledge of this because the company secretary refuses to pass my letter to them.

If any Council members happen to be reading this thread, I will be happy to provide the details and evidence to you directly.

Gary, as Which? is a charity and many of us are members, not subscribers, I believe we should be entitled to an explanation. Perhaps Which? would like to elucidate. There may well be a very good reason why they could not proceed.
I am never clear about Which?’s position in these conversations – many times it is asked to comment or provide information, but does not. Perhaps we should have a Conversation about Conversations to understand just what they are for? We see articles published in Which? that seem to take no note of the views that are expressed in related conversations. You would think contributors’ views were of some relevance?

It’s hard to know exactly what’s happened, Gary, but I am somewhat concerned about the entire thing. You should know, however, that the elected Council in terms of the day-to-day management of Which? is a fairly impotent grouping in the main, although some individuals on it are possessed of a decent and moral perspective, and will be unhappy to know you have been treated so poorly. The power that actually controls Which? is in fact Which? Limited – a grouping comprised of largely unelected individuals whose presence is determined by their association with the Director – PVS – and because they have been seconded to the company as their presence is thought to be beneficial in a competitive marketplace.

I will try to ensure that what you have posted makes its way to the people concerned.

Ian, thanks for your interested, which is appreciated. I don’t know what happened – I simply stick to the facts. What troubles me is the lack of clarity. I’ve tried very hard to raise my concerns privately, without success.

I appreciate I have no greater right than anyone else to expect my story to be taken up, but I am very certain that what I discovered about my legal expenses claim is a matter of serious concern.

Yes, I understand something of the arcane nature of the Which? empire! It maybe begs some questions about what Which? is perceived to be versus what it actually is; an interesting debate for another time, perhaps.

Malcolm, thanks for your contribution. I agree with you that there may be very good reasons. I don’t claim any special rights, but I do think some clarity is required. As for the insurance claim I deconstructed, having discovered the truth I meet only with a wall of silence.

I share your concerns regarding interaction with members.