AA roadside breakdown: Why can't you give sensible personalised renewal quotes?

[Short link to this article if you need it - http://goo.gl/VJQcsJ - or retweet me]

I'm a long standing member of AA ... Before anyone says it, I don't have an alcohol problem - I'm referring to the Automobile Association which provides vehicle breakdown cover in the UK. With most insurance policies for standard vehicle insurance and the like you'll be given a "reasonable" renewal quote based on your history and personal circumstances. But it seems the AA are completely incapable of doing the same. Every year they send me a standard renewal quote which is vastly higher than the prices on their web site, and every year I call them up and they drop it by about a third - often matching (or getting very close to) the prices on the web site. I got fed up and contacted the president of the AA:

@sxa555 If you like to email your username, details and ref 4364 to chat@theaa.com, we'll look into this for you. evk — Edmund King (@AAPresident) February 19, 2012

Thanks Mr.President - not actually acknowledging any problem, just telling me to call up again and sort it out. But you have to wonder why I would choose to do that when I could just call up your competitor and get a better price. Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy with the AA service, it's just the renewals process I have an issue with. This yeah I renewed my motorcycle insurance and was sorely tempted to take out the insurer's optional breakdown cover and then sign up to my bank's "extra" account which included breakdown cover for the car. But I'm going to write this blog post and see if they'll show any signs of changing it. "Big Data" is a big buzzword in the computing industry just now in terms of analysing vast quantities of data, but insurance companies have been doing this sort of thing for a long time to set premiums. It's inexcusable that AA's renewal prices are vastly higher than the ones on their web site - and I also claim that what's on their website is blatantly misleading ...

To give an example, at the time of writing this blog the basic level of cover on http://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/ as I write this is listed as £74.99 with a special £10 discount bringing it to £64.99 as per the image on the right. So what is the £10 discount for? Here's the small print:

* The £10 discount is available to new customers purchasing vehicle cover and national recovery using an annual payment method.

So the £10 discount appears to be for new customers, and therefore you'd naturally assume that the standard price for existing customers renewing would be £74.99. That's the level of cover I have. Last year the renewal came through at almost double that. So what does the £74.99 apply to if "new customers" are only getting a £10 discount off that? If anyone manages to find AA's "real" (not introductory) prices listed anywhere on their site then you're doing better than I managed when I alst looked.

@sxa555 If there is anything you'd like to address, please email chat@theaa.com with ref 65013.
— The AA (@TheAA_Help) March 4, 2014

It's made worse by the fact that the AA don't seem to have an option not to auto-renew each year (at least they are notify you before renewal date, avoiding nonsense list this  from 2012). So by default you'll suddenly get completely screwed by a massive price hike from what you're expecting (The send you a letter, but unless you verify it with last year, or the web prices, you might miss it) This is what happened last year for me:

Renewal came in at £145.42. 5 minutes waiting on hold but then managed to get down to £91.50 @TheAA_UK @TheAA_Help #customerServiceFail

— Stewart X Addison (@sxa555) March 4, 2014

So now we've covered the background, here's my standard "full disclosure" conversation with the AA (Note that this conversation was about a year ago so the offers mentioned are different from what's currently available)

SXA> Hi - I've been an AA member since I was on my father's membership, other than a 

SXA> short period when it lapsed for a couple of months (I initially had a card that 

SXA> showed my "member since" date as 1966). Over the last few years it seems my

SXA> renewal has always come in at a price significantly higher than the old price, 

SXA> and since you're keeping my details on file, you will auto-renew at the above price.

SXA> 

SXA> For the last few years or so I've called you each year and you've knocked it down

SXA> to a level comparable with the price on your web site. Each year I am told that it's 

SXA> because that's a "new policyholder" introductory discount. There are several issues 

SXA> with this:

SXA> 

SXA> 1) Despite you're auto-renewal policy I don't consider AA breakdown do be a 

SXA> subscription service (in the same way I don't with my car insurance policy) unlike 

SXA> something like music streaming or a TV subscription would be. I'm paying for one 

SXA> year of service. For this reason any "introductory discount" (as your assistants 

SXA> point out, that's what's on your web site) seems less relevant. And even though 

SXA> you've dropped the price for me to a comparable level, you still have scope for an 

SXA> introductory bonus for true new customers of the Amazon vouchers (I don't have such 

SXA> a problem with that)

SXA> 

SXA> 2) Last year I paid £85. This year my renewal came in at £145. Even if I was a new 

SXA> customer last year an increase of 70% is something that most people would choke at. 

SXA> If it wasn't so extreme then people would be more likely to accept it.

SXA> 

SXA> 3) If I just "trusted" your renewal quote then you are actively encouraging loyal 

SXA> customers such as myself to look elsewhere. In fact to avoid calling your call 

SXA> centre every year to beat the price back down it'd be less hassle for me to just 

SXA> toggle between the AA and RAC each year. That's nonsensical from a business point of 

SXA> view from your company. (For the record, a big chunk of the reason I don't do this 

SXA> was because I also need motorcycle cover which several of the providers don't have - 

SXA> but the RAC includes it as you do)

SXA> 

SXA> 4) I haven't given my membership number in this email but your records would show 

SXA> that I've made this call for several consecutive years. Surely given that you have a 

SXA> record of me doing this, it would be preferable from a "Don't annoy the customer" 

SXA> perspective to offer a more sensible renewal price for people who you know are not 

SXA> going to accept the default renewal price. Unless of course you don't care about 

SXA> customer loyalty. I understand some people will just accept the renewal, and that's 

SXA> their own fault that they don't know better (as is the case for many financial 

SXA> services) But as someone who you know won't put up with it, you're not encouraging 

SXA> loyalty.

SXA> 

SXA> I'm interested to see a considered response from you on this - even better if you're 

SXA> able to forward to Edmund King as a "case study". I hope you can use this 

SXA> information to improve your services.

AA> Dear Mr Addison,

AA>  

AA> Thank you for taking the time to email The AA Social Media Team.

AA> 

AA> This is something we would like to look into for you.

AA> 

AA> I have liaised with the relevant department and have passed your details over for 

AA> investigation.

AA> 

AA> You will be contacted as soon as possible.

AA> 

AA> Kind Regards

AA> [name removed for this blog]

AA> The AA Social Media Team

22 days later I received a reply

AA> To: Mr S Addison

AA> From: The Automobile Association

AA> 

AA>   

AA> Dear Mr Addison

AA>   

AA> Thank you for contacting us about your AA membership renewal. I was sorry to learn 

AA> that you are unhappy that you have to call each year to obtain a discount for your 

AA> renewal.

AA> 

AA> The AA, like many companies, operates a standard pricing structure for existing 

AA> members. We are unable to offer automatic and continuous discounts so we send the 

AA> standard quote for renewing at the level of cover held and give the member the 

AA> opportunity to contact us if they are unhappy.

AA>   

AA> It is difficult to personally price cover for over 4.5 million members so it is only 

AA> when we are contacted that we can look at each membership on an individual basis. We 

AA> review the cover held, service usage and membership tenure in order to see if a 

AA> discount is available.

AA>   

AA> As a long standing member I can see a discount has been honoured again for you this 

AA> year as it has in the past. I hope you will be happy with the new price that has been 

AA> arranged.

AA>   

AA> In closing, I would like to thank you for taking the trouble to make us aware of your 

AA> feelings. It is through valuable feedback, such as yours, that we are able to learn 

AA> and improve the service we provide. Finally, I would like to apologise again for 

AA> failing to meet your expectations.

So they claim to have a "standard pricing structure" (as per my opening paragraphs, I don't see where this is published - it certainly isn't made clear that it's way above the prices on their front page) and their assertion that "it is difficult to personally quote for 4.5 million members" is just crazy. I'm not expecting an individual quote like I'd get for my main vehicle insurance cover - there aren't that many cases for breakdown cover. So I went back to them:

  

SXA> Ref: "It is difficult to personally price cover for over 4.5 million members so it 

SXA> is only when we are contacted that we can look at each membership on an individual 

SXA> basis."

SXA> 

SXA> Are you honestly saying your systems don't have algorithms that can figure that out 

SXA> in far less time than it takes someone on the phone to look at a screen and make an 

SXA> assessment? I work in the computer industry and the concept of that not being an 

SXA> obvious thing to have automated is astonishing to me - it's NOT difficult to put an 

SXA> initial sensible personal discount together automatically. Even if this was only 

SXA> triggered for people like myself who you know will call every year. Also, if you 

SXA> offered a sensible renewal price in the first place your customers would almost 

SXA> certainly be less likely to "haggle" on the phone to bring it down even further. The 

SXA> only reason for not automating this is the hope on your part that people won't 

SXA> bother to call.

SXA> 

SXA> I am happy with the new price, but I am struggling to see why I would remain with 

SXA> you next year when you force me to do this every year (especially in light of your 

SXA> odd comments on difficulty of automation). Unless of course you don't genuinely care 

SXA> about customer loyalty and satisfaction. Also, ref your "standard pricing structure 

SXA> for existing members" - where are those prices publicised - I couldn't find them on 

SXA> your web site.

At this point I received no further reply via email but did receive a letter from them:

Nonsense. Can they not afford a competent IT division, or do they just like ripping people off? Until I see evidence to the contrary I'm going with the latter.  I assume the "official complaint" mentioned in that letter is logged in there and then been chucked in the "Your call is important to us" bucket. And since they were floated on the stock market last year I'm not holding out much hope that they have an interest in anything but making more money for the shareholders. I'm happy to discuss further with the AA if they wish to talk to me to convince me otherwise. Or make a comment in the blog publicly, or to me on twitter.

EDIT 25/2/2015 : Two days after I posted this article I got a renewal notice through the mail - £138.04. Can I be bothered calling them up again, or is it time to vote with my credit card and leave them?

EDIT 3/2/2015: Adding a few random tweets from others on the subject:

So I paid £100 for AA Breakdown cover the last 2 years. Renewal comes in for £212, I think not! Bye bye AA 👊👋
— Ellie Summers (@ellie_summers) February 7, 2015

worksco

@TheAA_Help Thanks, I've done that. But I think someone at AA needs to look at sending out massively inflated renewals to start with.
— Paul Townsend (@ShineOnDetail) January 8, 2015

to join the AA Breakdown cover would cost me £151 as a valued customer my 2nd year they will automatically collect £249 I don't think so
— Tell (@terry_borlase) February 27, 2015

@cathy_magenta Cannot stand auto-renewals. My AA membership is prime example. Covered through bank account add on and AA now.
— Chris Lovell (@ChrisLovellGB) February 13, 2014

On the basis of the above, I feel sorry for the poor individual who decides to take up this job  ...

Customer Service Administrator - Renewals Admin - Annesley - AA Training and Recruitment http://t.co/IY9fJfsOIB
— Jobs In Nottingham (@NottmPostJobs) February 20, 2015

Carphone warehouse, new PAYG handsets and topups to new SIM cards

[ Short link to this article if you need it - http://goo.gl/AZxXf6 - or retweet me ]

I wrote this article some time ago, but delayed posting it due to having an open issue regarding this with the ASA, which has now completed. In the normal style of this blog I'm posting the transcripts of my discussions with the company. A link to the ASA's ruling is available at the end of the article.

A few months ago I looked at upgrading a pay-as-you-go handset on Vodafone. I'd had the SIM

card for several years and never taken advantage of an upgrade. I saw a handset at a good price on the same network via Carphone Warehouse and decided it might be worth taking advantage of it. Despite being with the network for a long time I didn't top up regularly enough to qualify for an "upgrade" (fair enough) so I was looking at buying a new handset on the network. Unfortunately, this didn't quite work out as expected.

The image on the right shows that when you buy a handset you have to spend an extra £10 to buy a top-up along with the base price. That's pretty clear. The problem arose when I tried to buy the handset and a £10 topup on my existing SIM card. Apparently that's not possible. It's also not at all clear to me from the wording on the image (the same as in-story) that this restriction applies. Normally it's also not possible to port your number from one SIM to another in the same network, so in order to retain my own number it would actually make more sense for me to move to a different network. On that basis this policy doesn't seem to make sense to me or the network, so who's enforcing it? I contacted Vodafone who said they do not enforce such a policy so that left me with Carphone Warehouse. Surely they could explain it? Let's see how that interaction went.

I didn't get a reply to my initial email  and received a confirmation email from them on February 1st and received (I don't have a copy of it - I think it was submitted on a web form so I didn't have a record of it) and after waiting a month I chased it up a and they claimed they'd sent a reply. Given that I use gmail there is pretty much zero chance of an email getting lost as I'd be able to have found it if it had be trapped as spam etc. So I redrafted the email and sent it again. Here's how the conversation went:

SXA> Hi,
SXA>
SXA> There is no record of any reply in my inbox. Since I used gmail I would have been 
SXA> able to find it even if it had been classed as spam (I was checking periodically for 
SXA> a reply from you since I sent it). Regardless of that, if your web form is losing 
SXA> data that's submitted I strongly suggest you advise your technical team in case you 
SXA> have an SQL injection vulnerability or similar on your server.
SXA> 
SXA> Unfortunately I cannot find the text of my original message to you so I'm going to 
SXA> have to redraft it - I am not an existing customer of yours (despite me trying to 
SXA> be) therefore the details you've asked for are irrelevant:
SXA> 
SXA> My issue was regarding a visit I had to one of your stores (since the policy appears 
SXA> generic across stores it doesn't really matter which) where I was looking at 
SXA> replacing a PAYG mobile which I have on Vodafone with a newer model. I've had the 
SXA> SIM card for several years now and never gone through a formal upgrade process. 
SXA> Regardless of this, I did not qualify for an "upgrade" because (I believe) I fall 
SXA> foul of the regular top up requirement.
SXA> 
SXA> Because of this I started looking at a straight PAYG handset purchase with the 
SXA> intention of putting my existing SIM card into it. However because it's not an 
SXA> official "upgrade" I have to buy a £10 topup. That's fair enough, I'll buy a 
SXA> Vodafone handset and put £10 on my existing SIM card.
SXA> 
SXA> But it seems I cannot do that - you insist on the £10 going on a new SIM. Worse, if 
SXA> I do that and buy a Vodafone SIM I cannot port my number across. This left me with 
SXA> four options if I want to upgrade through your company:
SXA> 1) Put £10 on a new Vodafone SIM and throw it away, and continue to use my old SIM 
SXA>    card and its number. That seems a waste of credit
SXA> 2) Use my existing credit til it's empty and change my number. Inconvenient
SXA> 3) Buy a phone on another network and port the number across
SXA> 
SXA> 4) Go ahead with it and try and convince someone to buy a new SIM with £10 credit on 
SXA>    it from me
SXA> 
SXA> Option 1 just seems ridiculous. Option 2 seems like a ludicrous bureaucratic 
SXA> requirement to be able to replace my handset. Option 3 seems very counter-loyalty 
SXA> from the network' perspective, and in fact a tweet I got from Vodafone after 
SXA> querying this made it clear that this wasn't something that they enforced. Their 
SXA> response was clear in saying that it wasn't something the network enforced on new 
SXA> PAYG handset purchases:
SXA> 
SXA>    "Third party stores may require this. Have you been into a Vodafone store?"
SXA> 
SXA> So the problem appears to be with something you are doing and not something Vodafone 
SXA> are forcing you into. Thinking about this objectively and not just from my 
SXA> perspective:
SXA> 
SXA> a) It doesn't appear to be sensible from a network loyalty perspective (i.e. not 
SXA> good for the network because the most sensible option is for me to move to another 
SXA> one)
SXA> b) I can't see any business benefit to Carphone Warehouse to enforce this 
SXA> (particularly in light of the fact your handsets are supplied unlocked). Any 
SXA> suggestion it's because of a network subsidy seems somewhat suspect as I would 
SXA> expect such a subsidy to mandate it to be locked to their network)
SXA> 
SXA> In fact your sales wording is actively misleading by saying the price is "Plus £10 
SXA> topup" which I don't think any reasonable person would interpret as "Plus a new SIM 
SXA> including £10 credit". I'm (reasonably) happy to pay £10 topup, I'm not happy 
SXA> requiring a new SIM card.
SXA> 
SXA> Can you justify why you have such a seemingly ridiculous policy on PAYG handsets 
SXA> that seems to discourage switching? You've lost a sale to me because of this, I 
SXA> wasted the transport costs visiting your store, and because of this I now currently 
SXA> have a negative view of your company (and losing my initial complaint did not help 
SXA> matters).

So I tried to raise all the issues in a concise manner and explained why it made little business sense to any party to enforce this. How did they reply? Well the first few paragraphs spoke about the upgrade I didn't qualify for (to be honest, that didn't bother me too much - I was happy to buy a new phone) then they looked at addressing the issues:

CPW> Dear Stewart,
CPW> 
CPW> Thank you for replying to our email with your original enquiry.
CPW>  
CPW> Firstly, I am really sorry that it's taken longer than expected for us to 
CPW> respond and for that I do apologise. Looking into your query that we have 
CPW> now received as we have no details for you I can only provide generic
CPW> information however there are a small amount of cases when we are unable 
CPW> to process deals for customers.
CPW>  
CPW> You have advised that you don't qualify for an upgrade as you don't meet 
CPW> the regular top up requirement. In rare circumstances such as this when we 
CPW> can't upgrade a customer we can look into alternatives which you've 
CPW> mentioned would include buying an alternative handset on the same network.
CPW> 
CPW> As you've mentioned that it's been a while since you upgraded it may be 
CPW> the case that with the new handset you would need to get a new SIM 
CPW> regardless of whether we can upgrade you or not. If this is the case then 
CPW> you may be able to transfer your existing number onto the new SIM and the 
CPW>k credit may remain also. If it doesn't then it is something we can 
CPW> certainly look into further for you.
CPW>  
CPW> Whilst the third option you've mentioned isn't one recommended by the 
CPW> network it is still an option and if it was one you wished to take then 
CPW> you could look into porting your number back to Vodafone. I understand
CPW> how inconvenient it may seem but it is an option that you may wish to take.
CPW>  
CPW> I understand that you may feel that the wording in regards to Pay As You 
CPW> Go phones may be misleading however we do try to make it clear to our 
CPW> customers of the difference. You can also purchase the phone SIM free so 
CPW> that you don't need to purchase a replacement SIM.
CPW> 
CPW> I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the service provided and we're happy to 
CPW> help with any queries you may have. I have also logged a complaint to 
CPW> address your comments internally through the appropriate channels. You 
CPW> unique reference is DTP0867656 and I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused.
CPW>  
CPW> If you've any other questions please don't hesitate in replying to this 
CPW> email. Alternatively you can call us [...]

So you've suggested that in order to get around the problem a further option is to port the number away (requiring me to use all my existing credit to avoid losing it, as porting will close the existing account) and then do the same to port it back again. That would of course, like all the other options, cause me to lose my existing tarrif. I do also take issue with "we do try to make it clear to our customers of the difference". Not based on that screen shot, which doesn't indicate any [*] or similar to lead to to the small print. I'm happy to buy a top up. I'm not happy losing my existing details. Let's try again:

SXA> Hi [Colleague name withheld in this blog]  (Ref: DTP0867656),
SXA>
SXA> You don't appear to have actually answered my real question - although you have
SXA> added a rather undesirable fourth option of "port the number away and back again".
SXA> 
SXA> I'll ask the question simply and I trust you can given an appropriate answer: Why, 
SXA> when there appears to be no benefit to you, the customer, or the network, does 
SXA> CarphoneWarehouse enforce the top-up being on a new SIM when it's not a network-
SXA> enforced restriction? Who does it benefit unless you're hoping that many people in 
SXA> my situation will choose to "lose" the credit via one of the options?
SXA> 
SXA> Despite your response, I still feel the "Plus £10 top up" wording on your website is 
SXA> highly misleading.

To which they replied:

CPW> Dear Stewart,
CPW>  
CPW> Thank you for replying to my email.
CPW>  
CPW> I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the fourth option I mentioned and I'm 
CPW> happy to help in regards to your original query. When customers purchase a 
CPW> phone on Pay-as-you-go the cost is cheaper than purchasing the item 
CPW> outright. In which case the extra is subsidised by the network and these 
CPW> are sold with the intention that they are used with the SIM card provided. 
CPW> This amount is dependent on the network and I hope that helps answer your 
CPW> query.
CPW> 
CPW> If you've any other questions then please feel free to reply to this email 
CPW> or you can call my department [...] 

Now that reads to me as though carphone warehouse's insistance on the topup being applied to a new SIM is because the handset is subsidised to the network who enforces it because of that, although the "intention that they are used with" phrasing is disappointingly vague. So I figured I'd clarify with the network again, who seemed more than keen to give a straight answer:

That, to me, is about as clear as it can be - they do not mandate the required top-up to be on a new SIM card, even when the phone is supplied on a deal through them via a third party retailer such as Carphone Warehouse.. Someone is not being honest with me here, so I sent this screenshot back to Carphone Warehouse:

SXA> Hi again [ASSISTANT NAME WITHHELD FOR BLOG],
SXA> I'm curious as to your phrasing of the response as "extra is subsidised by the 
SXA> network and these are sold with the intention they are used with the SIM card 
SXA> provided".
SXA> 
SXA> Your use of "the intention" is quite vague and does not denote any specific 
SXA> requirement, or who is enforcing it, but it does suggest that you are suggesting 
SXA> it's down to the network. I put this to Vodafone today and their response was public 
SXA> and very explcit on a direct question as to whether a third party retailer's (e.g. 
SXA> yourself) required it to be on a new top-up:
SXA> 
SXA> The information from our previous tweets hasn't changed. It's a

SXA> top up on a new or existing Payg SIM
SXA> 
SXA> (See attached screenshot from twitter for this quote)
SXA> 
SXA> Can you explain why Vodafone are saying this, while you are suggesting that's not 
SXA> the case. I feel one of the two of you is lying to me, or at best misleading me.

At the time of writing this was the last communication - which is nonsense since the screen shot I sent them was 31Kb in size:

CPW> Dear Stewart,
CPW>  
CPW> Thank you for replying to my email.
CPW>  
CPW> I'm afraid that the screenshot you've attached is too large to view as we're only
CPW> able to accept emails and attachments that are less than 10MB in size. Also, as
CPW> Vodafone are a separate company to ourselves I'm

CPW> unable to comment on their
CPW> response and that for that I do apologise.
CPW>  
CPW> I'm sorry if I'm unable to provide you with any specific information and we're only
CPW> able to provide generic information. To contact my department then please feel free
CPW> to reply to this email. You can also call my department on [...]

Clearly, this is getting me nowhere and although Vodafone have been quite open, Carphone appear unwilling to clearly explain where this is coming from, so my only option left is to post the transcript in this blog and hopefully one of them will make an effort to resolve this issue. I've had friends that have effectively lost money by being forced to load up a card they won't use, so the "£10 topup" is purely an extra £10 on their handset cost, where they've continued to use their existing SIM card. I also suspect that the lack of clear information about the new SIM requirement is in almost certainly in violation of reasonable advertising standards. Carphone Warehouse, you've lost any business from me in the future.

As mentioned at the start, instead of posting this article and hoping they would sort it out, I subsequently raised this with the UK Advertising Standards Associaion (ASA) and they agreed with me (you can read the ruling here) and in fact they spotted another issue (not including the top-up in the base price is a violation of advertising practice) Hopefully they will fix both issues soon. I still couldn't get a response to why they insisted on the top-up being applied to a new SIM though, so I've bought a SIM-free handset from an alternative supplier. I shall be sending carphone a link to this blog.

nPower, refunds, and misreading their own bill

[Short link to this article if you need it - http://goo.gl/8EXwEg - or retweet me!]

I initially moved to nPower for my gas supply because they came out cheapest on the comparison sites for my relatively low usage. I'd heard some bad stories about their customer service, but there were enough "good intentions" that I decided to see if they were turning things around. Unfortunately some changes (possibly due to the changes in energy standing charges) meant that my bills became dominated by the standing charges and I subsequently left (I'm now with Ebico who have a zero standing charge and my bills dropped by a factor of 4). Prior to switching away my direct debit was also a little too high and so I contacted them about trying to get a refund. They didn't seem keen, but more worryingly the way they responded to me (giving information which suggests they can't read their own bills) is almost unbelievable. Here's the first response I got when asking for a refund:

21 February

NP> Hello Mr ADDISON
NP> Judith Taylortand that you want some clarification about the refund. We do a mid term reassessment to ensure your 
NP> payments are covering your predicted usage. If needed, your payments will be adjusted after this review to cover your 
NP> usage based on the last 6 months and also to recover any balance that may have built up on your account. If you're 
NP> paying too much we'll lower your payments and also automatically refund any credit balance over £60 back into your 
NP> bank account. Just to let you know, the amount of £114.62 was not refunded as it was not a credit but it is a total of the 
NP> Direct Debit payments, you've made since your last bill.
NP> Mr Addison, your Direct Debit is set at £39.00 per month and the amount of £238.38 is not a credit and it is a total of the 
NP> Direct Debit payments, you've made since your last bill. This amount will be added to the charges on your next bill, 
NP> which is due to be issued on 22 June 2014.
NP> From the explanation provided and the actions I have taken, I am confident that I have been able to put things right for 
NP> you. If, however, you have any further queries about this issue, or any of the agreed actions are not completed in the 
NP> times promised, please call our Complaints team on 0800 316 9328. They are available from 8am to 6pm Monday to 
NP> Friday and 8am to 2pm Saturday. This number is usually free from any landline, or if you are calling from your mobile, 
NP> you can use 0330 100 8628, which is normally included within your free minutes or charged at the same rates as 
NP> numbers beginning with '01 and 02'.
NP> I trust this information has been helpful to you, Mr Addison.

So £114.52 is not a credit balance, but a total of all my direct debut payments? Really? This is from my bill at the time:

I don't see how anyone can read that the way my reply from nPower interpreted it - so I queried it again (bear in mind that the following communication was after a subsequent bill was sent so the numbers given were different from those listed above)

24th Feb

SXA> Your reply has the following two statements which appear to be in conflict:
SXA>  the amount of £114.62 was not refunded as it was not a credit but it is a total of the Direct Debit payments, you've
SXA>    made since your last bill.
SXA>  the amount of £238.38 is not a credit and it is a total of the Direct Debit payments, you've made since your last bill. 
SXA> i.e. two different figures which are "a total of the Direct Debits since the last bill
SXA> On that basis, I don't believe you've provided much clarity, especially given that you didn't include the message I
SXA> sent you in your reply.

18th March

NP> Hello Mr ADDISON
NP> Thank you for contacting us about your final bill.
NP> I understand you have contacted us on numerous occasions to clarify the bill. i am sorry to learn that online bill history 
NP> section appears more useful than what appears on the bill.. We care about what you think and want to understand what 
NP> we are doing right and where we need to improve things. That is why we read every piece of feedback that we receive. 
NP> As you will understand, sometimes change can take time in a large company like ours, but that does not mean we are
NP> not working to improve things based on what you say. In fact, we recently introduced freephone telephone numbers,
NP> so now you can call us free from a landline or mobile phone. Our customers told us this was important, we listened,
NP> and then we made the change.
NP> Mr Addison, I see that the Gas accounts is closed on 08 March 2014. Currently £221.06 is the total of the Direct Debit 
NP> payments you have made so far and it will be adjusted towards your final bill. Just to let you know, we do need to allow 
NP> your new supplier up to 28 working days to provide us with the meter readings to finalise your account. This is to
NP> ensure that we both use the same information to bill you. It can take further 7 to 10 working days for you to receive 
NP> your final invoice. Rest assured, any remaining credit after generating the final bill will be refunded to you.
NP> For more information, you can call our Leavers team on 0800 316 3375, this number is usually free from any landline
NP> or if you are calling from your mobile, you can use 0330 100 8674. They are open Monday to Friday 8am to 8pm and
NP> Saturday 8am to 6pm.
NP> As you have had to contact us again about this issue I have taken the opportunity to raise a complaint on your behalf. 
NP> Each complaint is allocated a unique reference number, yours is 99709178. This will remain open for 10 days allowing 
NP> you the time to receive my reply and consider the response. I am confident through the explanation I have provided and 
NP> the actions I have taken I have now been able to resolve things for you.
NP> If, however, this is not the case and you remain unhappy please contact our Complaints team within 10 days. You can 
NP> reach them by telephone on 0800 3169328, they are available from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday or 8am to 2pm 
NP> Saturday. This number is usually free from any landline or if you are calling from your mobile, you can use 0330 
NP> 3168628, which is normally included within your free minutes or charged at the same rates as numbers beginning with 
NP> '01 and 02'. If you prefer, you can email complaints@npower.com If we do not hear from you within 10 days we will 
NP> take it your query is resolved and close the complaint for you.
NP> Mr Addison, I trust this helps move things forward for you.

So £221.06 is the new total of direct debit payments is it? Here is the bill that has that figure on it:

The total of direct debit payments is £392.00 and I don't see how the "You are in credit by" figure of £221.06 could be misinterpreted as a direct debit total. Anyone else see how? On that basis I contacted them again:

21st March

SXA> You have just seemingly made EXACTLY the same error I mentioned in my last message
SXA> to you by saying:
SXA>  "£221.06 is the total of the Direct Debit payments you have made so far"
SXA> My bill clearly states that in the "Payments since the last statement" section that
SXA> I have paid 41+9*39=£392 - that is the total of the DD payments made so far. £221.06
SXA> is actually the amount I'm currently in credit by taking the DD payments into account
SXA> Can you explain why you've said what you have in any words that do not equate to
SXA> "NPower are unable to read it's own bills" please?
SXA> I will also say that it is EXTREMELY frustrating to not be able to see the history
SXA> of our conversation anywhere.

May 1

NP> Hello Mr ADDISON
NP> Thank you for contacting us about the refund.
NP> I'm sorry for the delay in processing the refund, Mr Addison. I understand that you've
NP> left us in March 2014 and wish to receive the refund of your credit. Having checked
NP> your account, I confirm that the gas contract was closed on 08 March NP> 2014 and the
NP>  final bill was generated on 19 March 2014 with a credit of £165.16. I'm unable to
NP> process the refund to your bank account as the Direct Debit has been cancelled. I've
NP> processed the refund on 22 April 2014 and you'll be receiving the cheque within 10 to
NP> 14 working days through the post. I assure that you'll receive the refund within the 
NP> given timescale. Further to your query, if your new supplier doesn't meet your
NP> expectations, rest assured you're more than welcome to discuss your energy supply with
NP> us again in the future. If this is something that doesn't interest you at present, I
NP> fully understand this and would like to wish you all the best.
NP> From the explanation provided and the actions I've taken, I'm confident that I've
NP> been able to put things right for you.If, however, you have any further queries about
NP> this issue, or any of the agreed actions are not completed in the times promised,
NP> please call our Complaints team on [...]
NP> I trust the information I've provided has been helpful, Mr Addison.

At least this time they read the next bill properly and said the final balance was £165.16:

So finally some good news. They said something that was correct. But now they have to send me a cheque because  the direct debit has been canceled. Superficially makes sense, except that at the time they generated that bill (Wednesday 19th) the direct debit was still active - I was notificed about it being canceled four days later (Sunday). Wouldn't it have made sense to do the refund via direct debit before canceling it? Or at the very least actively getting in touch with me to arrange a refund? Neither of those happened and I'm sure nPower would have happily held onto my balance without getting in touch had I not chased them, despite nPower claiming

"It is often said that energy companies keep large direct debit balances from their customers. In npower's case, this simply isn't true"

and nPower failing to attempt to refund me until I chase them would suggest otherwise. So I contacted their complaints address again:

SXA> Hi, 
SXA> 
SXA> The Direct Debit payment was canceled on the 23rd of March. If you generated the 
SXA> final bill on the 19th March as you say why did you 
SXA> 
SXA>  (a) Not credit it immediately during the four days that the DD was still active 
SXA> 
SXA>  (b) Not actively contact me to arrange a refund and even waited two whole weeks 
SXA> after I contacted you to reply (especially if it was processed over a week ago on 
SXA> April 22nd) to arrange a cheque to be sent out (which will therefore arrive close
SXA> to 2 months after the final bill was generated) 
SXA>
SXA> What was the reason for the delay other than to hold onto my money in the meantime?
SXA> Your page at https://customerservices.npower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1043/~/ofgem-investigation-%E2%80%93-what-is-npower-doing-to-refund-closed-account-balances%3F
SXA> says "It is often said that energy companies keep large direct debit balances from
SXA> their customers. In npower’s case, this simply isn’t true." yet that does not match
SXA> my experience
SXA>
SXA> I noticed you still did not appear to manage to explain a query from another email
SXA> I sent on March 21st (complaint ref 99709178) asking for an explanation of why you
SXA> appeared to give incorrect information to me surrounding some figures on my bill. 
SXA>
SXA> I would be interested in hearing about your reasons on the above, but bearing all of 
SXA> the above in mind, regardless of what my new energy supplier does in terms of
SXA> "meeting my expectations" it is almost inconceivable that they would be worse than
SXA> you in terms of customer service. 

Note that the page referenced in that last email has been removed from their site. A cached version is abailable here. I have had no response to this at the time of posting (May 29), however I did receieve the cheque from them on May 6th. They never did attempt to explain why their information on the bills was misleading or why they did not make a refund prior to them actively canceling the direct debit. I get the feeling OfGem wouldn't be impressed by this. [EDIT: After posting this someone pointed me at this BBC article talking about the chaos of nPower's billing].

Google + Nexus = Not the technical excellence I expected

[Short link to this article if you need it - http://goo.gl/EDB6xa  - or retweet me]

I bought a Nexus10 tablet - brilliant hardware for the money (especially that screen, although AMOLED would've been nicer but pushed up the price a lot I suspect). Good news right? Well I thought so except for two issues I started having with it (Google+ links included which in turn have links into forum threads from others talking about each issue)

1. It crashed roughly once a day
2. The notification LED on it seemed to stop working.

Twitter link to when I posted this image

The background

At this time I couldn't be sure if both were happening with the "out of the box" Android 4.2 - it updated over the air (OTA) to 4.2.1 within 24 hours of using it 

In an effort to diagnose the problem I tried changing the applications I was using on it, but it didn't appear to make a lot of difference. I then decided it was worth having a shot at a factory reset... Which appeared to fix the LED notification issue. Great problem solved I thought. Until either the first or second crash/reboot when it stopped working again. Subsequently this has happened a few times - if I reflash/reset then the LED works until one of the first few reboots. Therefore that issue appears software related.

February 6th - calling Google

Here was a page I got to while looking up the contact details - with their own browser it doesn't seem like they want to provide any contact options!

http://twitpic.com/c1co0u/full

So I called up Google to discuss these. The American lady on the end of the phone seemed very sympathetic. Almost too sympathetic. "I know how frustrating it can be ..." seemed to be her favorite phrase, empathising with me on the subject of hardware not just working as it should, and offered me a replacement device. Now bear in mind that the LED was clearly not broken, and many others had similar faults, it was hard to believe that it was a hardware issue. At the same time the issues appeared specific to the Nexus devices - particularly the 10 - which suggested it was in some way related to the hardware on there.

But what the heck - they're going to send out another one, put a "pending" charge on my account for it until I return the old one (within 21 days of receiving the replacement)

The second device

So I got the second unit, and decided to leave it at standard out-of-the-box 4.2 and not allow the OTA update. It appeared that the LED worked fine, and it took a while for the first crash to occur, but it eventually did.

Now at this point I still had the original Nexus. And while there wasn't an OTA 4.2.2 available to me yet (it was a staged roll out) there was a version of 4.2.2 which could be downloaded and installed. Since I had the other device, on February 13th I decided to give it a shot and pulled it up to 4.2.2. Once again the LED worked., but once again it stopped after a couple of reboots/crashes. I then followed a process to reset it it back to 4.2. Same happened - LED stopped working after a couple of reboots. So the second device appears to consistently fail with the LED, but the replacement - still on 4.2 - appeared not to have that problem, but still crashed. Here's a couple of screenshots from "Bootlog Uptime":

http://twitpic.com/c5av2h

So the old one on 4.2.2 (on the right) seems more stable, but then I wasn't using it as much during that period. The original one on 4.2 was still crashing. For the next few days I used the 4.2.2 one and it started crashing slightly more regularly.

21st February - Contacting google again - via email

I thought I'd try to reason with Google at this point. After all, they're a major technology company who I have a lot of respect for, so surely they'll respond to their customers on a technical issue ...

Hi,

I'm ready to return one of the devices back to you know (I've been running some more experiments on both before returning it) but I wanted to report the current situation.

My original device has been updated to 4.2.2. Every time an OS upgrade happens on it the notification LED appears to work correctly until the first - or occasionally second - restart (which,of course, happens in under a week because of the crashing issue)

The new second device you sent me appears to have no problems with the LED so far, but I've declined to perform any OS upgrade on it - it's still at 4.2. However it still crashes regularly - there is a screenshot of a log from the "Bootlog uptime" app at http://twitpic.com/c5av2h showing how regularly each of the two devices has been crashing so far. As per the comment in there, the 4.2.2 one is showing less crashes,but that's because I've been mostly using the new one to detect any problems.

The bottom line is that the crashing issues is still present on the replacement device. I do not know if the LED issue would be present if I allowed the system update to 4.2.1 or 4.2.2 to proceed, but I am reluctant to try it in case it doesn't work and I can't get the LED working reliably again.

Can you let me know whether there is any outlook on getting a fix for these issues, and what you suggest I do, because it seems reasonably clear that these devices have faults. The LED issue is common to many people (See http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40294 ) and likewise for the crashing (See http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobile/VFYnt7uN9d0%5B1-25-true%5D ) I would really like Google to acknowledge and provide a tracking mechanism/outlook for these issues as any self-respecting software development company would (I work for one myself) Despite the suggestions of some, the reboots are not specific to when Chrome is being used as the foregound application, although it is possible it has been started and in the task switcher in each case.

One of your other emails said "Thanks for using Google Play and we look forward to your feedback!" so there it is. Please advise how to proceed in order to get these significant issues resolved - I've been along time big supporter of google, but this is seriously damaging your reputation in  imy eyes. I would be delighted to work with you to resolve them, as a customer service of "Oh we'll just replace it" probably isn't going to appease your users if the fault is a software one.

Which gave this response, which did not give me confidence that the person on the end had any technical ability whatsoever - it was just another sales/marketing response:

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for contacting Google Play. I understand you had concerns regarding your Nexus 10. I understand how important this is to you. I'm happy to assist you with that today. Please let us know as soon as possible if you wish to return your Nexus 10 for a refund as you only have 2 more days of your buyers remorse. We appreciate your suggestions about Google Play. We frequently share customer feedback with our development team and will be sure to pass along your input. 

Thanks for your interest in our Nexus 10's..

If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reply directly to this email. Also, you may visit us at:

http://support.google.com/googleplay/bin/request.py?contact_type=contract_policy&policy=hardware

A generous offer, but I wanted to work with them if possible to try and get a resolution to the issues. I sent this back to them:

Thank you for the offer. However can you offer any suggestion as to the issues I mentioned? By seemingly not giving any acknowledgement of an issue or any suggestion that there will ever be a fix then you are doing your customers a disservice by keeping the device on sale. I would go as far as to say you are misadvising it as having a notification LED which doesn't work in any useful manner. I've offered all the info I have, I'd run diagnostics if it would help, but if all you can do is replace/refund (i.e. such issues are being hidden by sales teams rather than being addressed by the passionate developers I know you have working for you - I've considered joining you myself) rather than show any interest in such flaws then I'm staggered ... A vague promise of passing it along is useless.

I love the device. My choice would be not to get a refund if possible, but I need some assurance that the problems, which are not limited to just me, are being worked on. Can you give any reassurance in any of these areas, or can you find someone who can?

And got absolutely no response whatsoever. I guess they didn't want to provide any such reassurances. My respect for Google has now dropped significantly. They're not interested in dealing with resolving technical customer problems with their devices. I find myself thinking "Apple would probably have done this better" but as most people know I'm just not an Apple person. I figured I'd get the original unit packed up and sent back to google was within the 21 day period, but I'm keeping the second one. The screen's just too nice, and I need some sort of device ...

Where am I now?

So I did indeed keep the device despite the problems. On the plus side, the LED on the replacement unit was ultimately reliable - it's now running 4.4 (KitKat) of course. But it still crashes on average over once a week (78 times since I got it) So ultimately it worked, but it seems strange that they had what appears to have been a software issue that wasn't acknowledged by the staff.

This is a companion piece to my article on Android and using the Nexus10 as a laptop replacement.

Do I regret buying it? I had serious reservations after the above interactions with google, and I still think I'd still rather have had a 2nd gen Surface it it had been available at the time, but ultimately the Nexus10 has had plenty of use and was worth the money.