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.

Blackcircles tyres and admin of "MOT for a fiver" promotion

[Short link to this blog if you need it - http://goo.gl/oDo4WY - or retweet me]

Last year the vehicle tyre supplier BlackCircles.com was running the offer of an MOT for £5 (via rebate) for anyone who bought particular types of tyre from them. As a result of this offer I felt it was worth giving them a shot as a supplier, as the offer seemed pretty good. I bought two tyres for a total cost of £416.86 (Yes that really is a reasonable price for what they were!) for fitting at a local centre. 

All good so far. I had the tyres fitted and then booked the MOT expecting to receive the appropriate documentation for the MOT voucher immediately afterwards. Unfortunately this didn't happen.

SXA> I had my tyres fited on Wednesday., According to your page at

SXA> http://www.blackcircles.com/offers/mot-for-fiver

SXA> the MOT voucher code will "be sent 1 working day after your fitting

SXA> has been completed or delivery has been received" 

SXA> Given that it is now Friday, and I've got the MOT booked for Monday

SXA> (based on the timescales in those T&Cs), can you clarify when I

SXA> can get my code please?

BC> Thank you for your email.

BC> Please confirm your Blackcircles Order number and we will look into this for you.

I gave them the number, and ultimately I ended up having a phone conversation with them where it became apparent that the order had gone through without the MOT offer being applied. Not a good start, and I had definately selected that open when putting the order in - I remember it being on the web form and given that this is why I was choosing to use them I was careful about applying it, so my attempt to take advantage of the MOT offer had got mysteriously lost.. They then put it through the system again with a different order number (same as my original with an 'A' suffix) and my offer voucher came through. Fortunately despite the assistant on the phone being unable to give any assurances that it would or that they'd be able to help if it got delayed, it did come through in time for the MOT.

Not the best start to my first dealings with BlackCircles, but we're back on track. It's worth pointing out that during the time between me getting the MOT done and sending in the documentation I recommended BlackCircles to a colleague and they also had exactly the same problem as I had above with the order not going through correctly with the MOT offer and had to make the same phone call I did. So something in their system seemed already keen to catch you out... Plus the initial requirement to register the voucher before the MOT also appears to have caught some people out too:

£600 spent on tyres at http://t.co/XKbA8xOWaS. Won't honour my MOT for a fiver as I didn't read small print to "register". #tyres
— Charlie Lambert (@charlielambert7) July 18, 2013

I got the MOT done, and then made the mistake for a number of reasons of delaying before I sent in the documentation. I thought it was within four weeks but on submission it appears not.

BC> Thank you for your claim in our MOT for £5 promotion. 
BC> Unfortunately we are unable to process it for the following reason: 

BC>    - Your claim was received later than 28 days from the MOT date.

BC> May we take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in our offer.
BC> For further information or questions regarding this promotion please email motoffer@blackcircles.com. 

Now I have to believe that they did receive it later, but let's bear something in mind here. This was my first order with BlackCircles. The offer was valid for an MOT up to a year after the promotion started and therefore the money for the offer would have been pre-allocated for those who took advantage of it (subject to anyone who didn't object to their order not going through properly in the first place as I described above). This experience defines my view of the company, and logically that artificial limitation didn't make a lot of sense. On that basis I tried to reason with them with a bit of common sense.

SXA> I think this is a very disappointing response to have received. I made the decision

SXA> to try BlackCircles over the other providers in part because of the MOT offer (and

SXA> from some other recommendations) and a decision to enforce an entirely arbitrary

SXA> 28-day limit (I thought I had sent it back within that timeframe, but perhaps not)

SXA> appears to be purely for the purpose of trying to give any excuse not to honour the

SXA> offer. This feeling is backed up by the fact that the MOT offer got missed from my

SXA> original order. I definitely selected it, and a colleague subsequently had EXACTLY

SXA> the same problem when placing an order after I recommended you to them - both of

SXA> us had the order resubmitted with an 'A' suffix on the number after calling up to

SXA> complain. As mentioned this feels like it is an attempt to avoid honouring the offer

SXA> because it required both of us to call to complain about it. I almost missed getting

SXA> the email with the redemption details before my MOT was due because of this

SXA> delay - fortunately it came through on the day the MOT was booked for.

SXA>

SXA> Regardless of whether this offer was administered by BlackCircles or (as it seems)

SXA> a third party, this decision to use various unnecessary tactics in order to provide

SXA> reasons not to fulfil an offer reflects badly on BlackCircles as a service provider.

SXA> As someone who works on a site with around 3000 people I was hoping to

SXA> recommend BlackCircles and the local fitter to send more business your way but I

SXA> can no longer do that, and will have no reasonable choice but to returning to an

SXA> alternative supplier for my subsequent tyre needs based on the service I have

SXA> received regarding this offer.

That email sent to their address at diss.net bounced:

> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
>
> Delivery to the following recipients failed.
>
>      blackcirclespromotions@diss.net

I forwarded it to another address, let them know it had bounced  and got this reply:

BC> Thank you for your email regarding the ‘MOT For a Fiver’ promotion.

BC> 

BC> While we understand your frustration the terms and conditions are set out so

BC> that the promotion is fair to everyone. There has to be a cut off date so that

BC>  the promotion doesn’t run indefinitely, we believe that 28 days is sufficient

BC> time for a consumer to send in the documents requested.

BC> As you your MOT receipt is dated 22/04/2013 you would have had until

BC> 20/05/2013 to make your claim.

BC> Unfortunately we didn’t receive your claim 29/05/2013 and as such the claim

BC> has been deemed invalid.

BC>

BC> We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

So they're sticking to the T&Cs although their assertion that "There has to be a cut off date" makes little sense - there is a one year cut off date for the offer already so this restriction is artificial other than to catch people out.

SXA> Your logic surprises me. While I completely understand the need to have an end date

SXA> on the promotion "to ensure that it does not run indefinitely", the same doesn't really

SXA> apply to the date from the MOT taking place. It should make no difference to you when

SXA> the MOT takes place, only that it is redeemed within a year (Or a year + 28 days). In

SXA> fact since the redemption money has presumable been reserved in advance, it is

SXA> actually better for you if people delay the claim as you can sit on the interest in the

SXA> time before redemption.

SXA>

SXA> By enforcing this seemingly pointless clause within your agreement with BlackCircles,

SXA> as well as failing to put the offer on the original order despite it being selected, you

SXA> have damaged the company's reputation in my eyes and ensured I will not deal with

SXA> BlackCircles again.

So there you have it - unmoving adherence to a pointless condition and trying to "miss out" on including the offer on the initial order for both myself and the first (and last) friend I recommended them to earns BlackCircles a place in my customer experience hall of shame. I'm sure there are people who would say "It's your own fault for not sticking to the T&C" and that's technically true. But I object to T&Cs which service no real purpose other than to catch their customers out - how does that help the company? Are they really getting more benefit from new customers who come in and manage to use the offer than the negativity from people who have my experience? Has it been positive for their business overall?

During the above exchange I received an email outside the thread acknowledging the initial problems with the offer:

BC> Dear Stewart

BC> Thank you for your e-mail –I am sorry to hear of your disappointment with our recent promotion.

BC> Whilst we did experience some teething problems with the offer being applied to some 

BC> orders; there was never any intention not to honour the claims.

BC> You are correct in that the promotion was being run by an independent team and we did try 

BC> to ensure that our customers were fully aware of the conditions under which the offer 

BC> could be redeemed prior to placing their order (please see attached). As these conditions 

BC> were set out as part of a business agreement between Blackcircles and the promotions 

BC> company – I am afraid that I have no way to circumvent these.

BC> I would hope that you may feel able to consider us for your future needs despite this 

BC> issue and I would ask that you let me know if I can offer any further help.

Summary: I had to push for them to honour the offer initially, and I took advantage of it within the year - a reasonable condition. But trying to pretend that the 28 day condition is something that "There has to be" is nonsense, so they've lost any future business from me. It doesn't matter if the promotion is "administered by a third party" - I made the order through BlackCircles, and any problems with it reflect badly on them, and no-one else, from a customer perspective. I wonder if BlackCirtcles will reveal how many people in total who tried to take advantage of the offer ultimately weren't able to because of all the trip wires in the process?

Coincidentally last week I received an email asking for customer feedback. I shall be replying to them with the address of this blog. I hope they take note.

7DayShop security - lack of transparency, or understanding?

[Short link to this post if you need it - http://goo.gl/6o5zL - or retweet me]

Recently a number of people received password reset notifications from the 7dayshop website - a site that many people I know use that supplies batteries, camera accessories and the like, and I've used them for a few years now. The email came through as the sort of email you get when you go to a site and request a password reset. The notification included the text

  There was recently a request to change the password for your account.

  If you requested this password change, please click on the following link to reset your password: [Link removed]

  If clicking the link does not work, please copy and paste the URL into your browser instead.

  If you did not make this request, you can ignore this message and your password will remain the same.

So there is no indication in there that it was intentionally sent out by the company, and the last line explicitly seems to suggest otherwise. Now this, understandably, made a few people panic and go around change many other passwords in case the site had been somehow compromised. So what had happened to make so many people receive password reset notifications - was it a real attempt to break into people's accounts? Here's a perfectly reasonable train of thought by anyone who takes security seriously.

1. Maybe someone's trying to break into my account
2. If such an attacker is doing a reset in this way, maybe it's because they've already broken into my email account and can get the notification
3. Maybe they've already reset a number of other accounts this way, and already comporomised my other online accounts
4. I might not know if they've done this, as they could delete the evidence if they have access to my mailbox!
5. I'd better change all my passwords on all my systems.

The above thought process is entirely reasonable, and obviously generates a bit of work for the person receiving 7dayshop's mail.  So what really happened?

I found some more information when later in the day they made this post on their facebook page suggesting that as a result of changing their website they had "improved security". The also acknowledged "I agree that the wording could have been better but we will learn from our mistakes" OK, both those points are superficially good things, but it also included the following:

"all customers who had passwords less than 5 characters or passwords with special characters, which were not transferred over to the new site, were sent a new computer generated password."

OK, so that might explain the reset requests - although "sent a new computer generated password" isn't quite the same as "We've forced the reset process on you and suggested you'd initiated it yourself" More worryingly is that they appeared to know which passwords were <=5 characters. Surely any site that hashes passwords properly would have no idea how long the passwords were? They have confirmed that passwords were encrypted before and after the update - I suppose it's possible they're stored with an encryption key somewhere rather than a 1-way hash algorithm, although that would mean if that key is stored on their servers it's potentially subject to compromise if someone gets into their systems, so is less than ideal. Another comment they made to me was this:

A number of customer records did not migrate correctly onto our new system. We issued an email to these customers informing them to change their password. We received great feedback from our customers that implied the majority of issues were due to short passwords

I have to wonder who was providing this "great feedback" - I wouldn't normally think to tell the company I had a short password when I get a random reset notification, so I wonder what the nature of this feedback is. I emailed "Mandy" mentioned in the facebook thread, but that did not elicit a response. In order to try and get some concrete information I chose to email their customer support directly, instead of the general customer service people on Facebook. This is how it went:

---

Hi, I've tried to get this question answered via your facebook page, but the person on the end doesn't appear to answer the issues directly, merely skirting around the issue. I also tried emailing the address they gave me in that thread, but did not receieve a reply. All I'm getting is "We take security very seriously" and "we store encrypted passwords". Can you get someone with a clue about online security to please answer these two questions:

1) Were the passwords encrypted PREVIOUSLY i.e. prior to the site makeover.

2) If the answer to the first question is no, how do you know which passwords had the problem. You refer to vague "migration issues" but what were the issues that lead you to believe that the 5 character etc. ones were the ones that caused problems. If encrypted/hashed, you wouldn't be able to tell, and it shouldn't have mattered. Vague "feedback from our customers that implied the majority of issues were due to short passwords" is dancing around the question.

Please back up your statement about taking security seriously by providing answers to the questions. since if you haven't got someone who is technically capable of understanding the questions, then you cannot claim to take security seriously.

I'm just looking for a straight answer

---

And here is the response I got:

Hi Stewart

1. yes
2. Some records did not load. We dont know the exact reason. But customers mentioned about short passwords. Seems a logical link.

Is that straight enough?

---

So there you go - they have no technical explanation, and merely anecdotal evidence that the "migration failures" were caused by short passwords. I find it very strange that they would not be able to know for sure based on the sorts of failures they were seeing what caused the issues. Based on the evidence the most likely explanation seemed that they were previously unencrypted, and the insertion process into the new system had stricter rules, which many people's passwords were violating. But we have to believe them when they say that wasn't the case and that they've always been encrypted. But if a developer of a site for my company came to me and said they couldn't provide an explanation for password migration failures other than anecdotally from the end users, I'd be very concerned as to their competence. On the basis of them now knowing why they're system had problems, I do not see myself dealing with 7dayshop in the future.

Three - doubling the cost of my (3Pay) tariff so I've moved network

[Short link to this article if you need it: http://goo.gl/bSY0x - or retweet me]

For the past two years I've been on UK mobile network Three's "3Pay" tariff. And I won't be paying any more money to them. This tariff was the whole reason that I bought a SIM free handset at full price instead of going for a contract. Overall, it worked out more cost effective for me with the usage I have. The details of the 3Pay tariff are here, and the change was made so that the 'bonuses' (i.e. inclusive stuff) now expire after 45 days instead of 90. Unfortunately I can't provide a link to the change announcement because inexplicably this link only works of you're connecting via 3's network. So here's a cut & paste of the text from it:

You’re currently on 3Pay, one of our older Pay As You Go Tariffs, which we are updating. 

On the 3Pay tariff, you get a bundle of free texts, internet and Three-to-Three calls which last for 90 days, every time you top-up. From the 13th of March, you’ll still get all your free allowances, but they’ll last for 45 days instead of 90 days. 

Even with the change, our 3Pay tariff is one of the most competitive in the market, and it’s no longer available to new customers. 

We hope you continue to enjoy being on Pay As You Go with Three, and don’t forget, you can double the free texts you get on some top-ups if you top-up using your My3 account. 

For more information on your 3Pay tariff click here. 

Any Top-ups made before midnight on the 12th of March will still get their free allowances for 90 days, any made after, will have their free allowances for 45 days. 

For full terms and conditions, visitthree.co.uk/terms on your PC. 


So there you have it. In effect they've used 4.1b in their T&C:



4.1  We may vary any of the terms of your agreement, including our Packages, on the following basis:
(b) we will let you know at least one month in advance if we decide to: 
(i) discontinue your Package; or
(ii) make any variations to your agreement which are likely to be of material detriment to you; or
(iii) increase the fixed periodic charges for your Package (if applicable) by an amount which is more 
than the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index Figure (or any future equivalent) in any twelve month period. You can end the agreement for such variations as explained in Section 10

Now bearing in mind that I joined Three on the basis of the cost of their deal over the expected life of the handset, this is somewhat disappointing. I have NEVER known any other network to withdraw a deal in this way (I also have a PAYG Vodafone "Stop The Clock" SIM that hasn't been available for years, but it's never been withdrawn or had it's essence taken away for existing users of it). I have no problem with such clauses in the T&C existing for changing minor things (for example the introduction of a 1p delivery confirmation charge last year) but to double the tariff (my usage was very close to exactly what 3Pay provided) is something I consider unacceptable, and means I find it hard to trust the network for any future purchasing decisions. My handset developed a fault in December 2011 (I got it, and the 3Pay SIM in January 2009) and fortunately it was repaired under warranty, but at the time I was considering replacing it with a £399 SIM free Nokia Lumia 800. If I'd done that, then 3 months later lost the deal I was on, then it would have been a financial loss to have chosen that over a contract. And it amazes me that Three consider it acceptable to treat it's current customers in that way.

In my opinion their balance screen is also highly misleading. If I top up my account before I've used my existing balance, then they are listed as being "queued", whereas the parts of the account actively being used at the moment are listed with the remaining number of minutes/texts/data and an expiry date:

Now to me "queued" gives the impression that the 90 45 days will take effect from when it comes out of queued state, but it appears this is not the case. In reality it's still subject to the original 90 days from when the top up was made, the queuing just refers to the fact that texts come out of your earlier allocation first. My most recent top up (made 90 days priort to the expiry date of 05/05/12 which you can see) was made purely because my credit card had expired and to register a new one I was forced to make a top up. I expected that to queue up an extra 90 days of use after my current allocation expired (the one made 90 days prior to the 28/04/12 date shown), but apparently not. If the expiry date is fixed, then it should list the date next to "in queue" otherwise it is misleading (and I've effectively wasted a £10 topup).

I made these points to their support channels, and received a reply saying that in order to log the complaint they needed the following:

• Your Three mobile number/account number
• The best number for us to contact you on
• The full name on your account
• Your postcode
• Your date of birth

I'm not quite sure why they need all of that - surely my mobile/account number is all they require, and they didn't ever try to contact me by phone. I also raised the question of why the tariff change terms were only accessible via their network and was told

"There was a temporary glitch with the link we sent you by SMS.  If you still have the SMS can you please try and access it now?  This will need to be accessed from your Three phone to be viewed properly."

Thus failing completely to understand and answer the question. I had no problem with the link they sent on their network, i just wanted a reference link I could include in this blog entry...

They also offered this "If you want to move on to one of our new tariffs we can offer other exciting benefits such as all-you-can-eat data and a higher text message allowance." - do they really expect that I'd choose to pay several times more than I have been (£15/month is the price for all-you-can-eat) for things I won't use?

My last email on the subject was not replied to, I won't reproduce it here because he content of this blog covers what was in it, and pointed out that I was looking for a more usable 3Pay change document link to include in this blog.

Goodbye Three, it was fun. Your data coverage and speed was good (except where I work, but that's another reason I'm happy to move) but I simply can't trust you again.

Barclaycard: 3 issues, 2 months to get (some) answers. Lies about FSA guidelines. Goodbye

[Short URL to this article if you need it: http://goo.gl/UnyZi or retweet me]

I raised three issues with Barclaycard in the last few months of 2011:

1. My contactless (PayPass) card stopped working for payments where it had been ok before
2. I wanted to understand a £1 transaction that was on my account (October 13)
3. A circular URL on the web site (an error message telling me I was using the wrong login URL directed me to a log in page that showed the same message again) (December 6)

The first (most problematic) of these is still unresolved, the second was something that should have been fairly easily answered (both were things I initially raised on the phone to their foreign call center and failed to get an acceptable response with). The third issue received no response

To clarify point 1, my contactless card had been working fine, then stopped. I suspected some sort of security check, and since I only use that card for contactless payments, I didn't have a PIN to try using the card in a non-contactless way. When I called them an hour later, they just told me to try again as they did not even have a record of a transaction failure  on my account in their system.

For the second point, the answer was (as I had started to suspect, but expected customer service to know for sure) that the £1 showing on my account online as a pending transaction was from an automated petrol pump doing a test transaction before refueling to verify the card. This is normal, and the transaction gets subsequently cancelled. Again customer service failed to provide an explanation, and merely suggested I check again later once the transaction was finalised. I always thought it was a good thing to alert the company to something that might count as potential fraud ... but apparently that's futile.

Because of the failings I'd had obtaining useful answers from their customer service advisors, I chose to contact them via their "secure message" system on the web site, which may well be secure when you send the message, but any online reply you get comes via email, and doesn't include your original text. So you have to remember what you said to them, and remember that everything else isn't as secure as was initially suggested. Now Barclaycard have what I consider to be the extremely annoying habit of trying to call you back even when you contact them online - and worse it's from a number that doesn't have caller ID so you have no idea who is calling you asking you to confirm your security information. It's hard to say if that's due to the aforementioned low security of their secure message system, or some other reason.

Either way I had hoped to get it resolved online, giving them time to fully consider a response, given the problems I'd had with their call centers. They initiallly tried to call me via phone (I have no reception on my personal mobile phone at work) and so left me several voicemail messages, all from an Indian-sounding call centre. I replied to them via email indicating that I wanted a resolution that didn't involve their call centers, both because of the apparent lack of expertise, the accents often being problematic especially via a mobile phone network, and the amount of time I seem to spend on hold with them. I'm looking for efficiency in resolution.

On emailing them regarding the £1 transaction I receieved a couple of responses from their email team such as confirming that it was from an automated pump and that:

• "I understand your concern regarding this extra amount will be added to the real price of the fuel once the correct transaction amount reflects. I can confirm that this is the only one transaction appearing in Outstanding Authorisation related to the merchant and appears to be real amount"
• "an account can only legally be debited once the credit card company is in receipt of the sales voucher receipt. We are expecting to receive the sale voucher by 14/10/2011, may I request you to check your statement after Monday"

Now ignoring the fact that the first bullet point is grammatically poor and therefore not as clear as it should be, the assertion that it is the "real amount" appears to only confuse the matter. It is not "real" in any useful sense regarding how much I will be charged, which backs up my comment about there being problems with non-native English speaking customer service staff, whose job is communicating with their customers.
I would also have expected the full transaction to be in the system by that point - why does the initial authorisation show up as pending immediately, but the full amount took days? I'm sure this isn't specific to Barclaycard but it is worth mentioning. It would have been good if the credit card company could explain whether the same transaction could be modified while pending if that's what's really happening here. After all, I couldn't have filled up with just £1 of fuel since most pumps have a 5 litre limit or so common sense dictated that the "real amount" is unlikely to be true ... Despite the fact that I had enough of an idea about where the £1 transaction had originated from at this point that I was no longer concerned about it, but the issue fell into the complaints process. I do wonder how true this is - they'll get a link to this blog:


On these issues raised via email I subsequently received the following letters through the post from Barclaycard:

• 9 November I received a letter apologising for the delay after their October 17 complaint acknowledgement letter and that "we will contact you again by 07 December 2011".
• A second letter also arrived daed 9 November 2011 saying that I had been put into their complaints process, one saying they would "aim to resolve matters by the 02 December 2011" (I presume this was for a different issue from the first one, but neither letter mentioned which issue it was in relation to)
• 2 December 2011: Referencing the letter on the 09 November, they said they would contact me again by 04 January 2012
• 7 December 2011: I received a letter headed as a "Final Reponse" addressing the issues (For the record, my complaint reference numbers are 1000DC4Y AND 1000HX2T if anyone important is reading this) and telling me it had been closed.

It's somewhat amusing that they they seem to perpetually say "We'll be in touch in a months time" rather than getting down and dealing with the issues, especially when it includes a customer unable to use their card.
Part of the response included this sentence:

• "unfortunately if we are unable to respond to your within 48 hours or you do not respond to one of our emails within the same time frames, we have to raise the complaint to a higher level under the guidelines set out by the FSA"

This, to me is shocking. Apparently their complaints process allows them to take months to reply ... once they've broken the apparent FSA 48 hour limit. But wait a minute, their automated email response included this:

• "Barclaycard staff are always available and ready to respond during regular business hours, excluding holidays, and will normally answer you within 3 working days."

So their own automated responses give expectations that break those claimed FSA guidelines that they are telling me they are adhering to in order to justify not responding for months.
So there we go, confirmation that the information supplied by Barclaycard was false. I will continue with analysing the original response I received from Barclaycard

• "Although we aim to resolve all queries within 24 hours, we are experiencing a high volume of messages at the moment so please allow 3 working days for a response. There is no need to resend your message as we will deal with all messages in the order in which they are received."

So their targets are three working days, but you get sent into a complaints process at the request of the FSA if they don't reply in 48 hours. Something's not right there.

I emailed the FSA on 3rd February about the 48 hour limit and got this automated reply: "please be aware that we work to a service level of 12 working days, and it is likely that it will take this long to respond to you." Oh the irony, although I still waited for them since if they do have a 48 hour limit it probably won't apply to themselves as they aren't a bank... As it happens they missed the 12 day limit anyway so I sent a follow up on 26th February. I got a reply on Wednesday 29th February apologising for missing their targets "due to a high level of correspondence" and including a lengthy reply (mostly talking about the process which my bank had already given me) including these two pieces of information:

• "If the firm cannot send you a final response within eight weeks, then they must inform you that you can ask the Ombudsman to consider your case."
• "With regard to the 48 hour limit on responses that your bank has set, I can advise that this is not a rule set by the FSA and therefore could be an internal rule for your bank. The FSA do have rules that state that a firm should respond to consumer complaints within a reasonable time but we do not set what that time should be. Its is for the banks themselves to set."

Which says, fairly clearly, that the information that Barclaycard have supplied to me was incorrect.
Going back to Barclaycard's letter it also states that "All of our front line Customer Staff are trained to the same high standards". I appear to have a different expectations of "high standards", given that they were unable to resolve my problems when I called. In terms of the other problems their letter responded on my specific points as follows:

I was told they have been unable to determine the paypass problem, and that they have no notes from their technical team, or fraud department to show a security check being requested from me. At the very least I'd have hoped they'd logged my call about it. Apparently not.

The £1 charge was explained in the letter as a 'test' transaction which was normal for automated petrol pumps and that it would "drop off" the account, which sounds to me like it gets removed, and the real transaction added, as opposed to being "added to the real price of the fuel" as suggested via email. Frankly, since these messages have had an air of inconsistency about them, and so it's hard for me to trust the company with any of my finances.

The letter also stated that

• "For the purposes of the Financial Ombudsman Service please consider this to be our final response. If you are unhappy with the outcome, you may ask the financial Ombudsman Service to review your complaint and you have six months from the date of this letter to do so".

Which I will happily do ... It's also worth pointing out that this was the FIRST response they'd provided to my electronic contact on the paypass issue which is the most problematic one as it stops me using my card. In fact since this "Final Response" doesn't fix my ability to use my Barclaycard for contactless payments I've moved my contactless banking to a Virgin Money charity card (1% including Gift Aid of all my transactions is given to a charity of my choice) which I can heartily recommend, and my second Barclaycard (which was used exclusively for online transactions - I feel safer having a separate card for those) has had most of it's use transferred to a card issued by Creation.

I've happily used Barclaycard for many years (in fact since I was at university), but their customer service incompetence recently has lost me as a previously loyal customer. Such a shame, and all down to issues that a genuinely "trained to high standards customer service team should have been easily able to avoid. Clearly they have staff who know some answers, but they're not the ones you get through to when you call them. And multi-month escalation delays to get answers to such questions is unacceptable.

In summary, here are the problems I encountered:

1. Nobody has been able to explain why my contactless card no longer works or apparently made any effort to resolve it
2. The "high standard" customer service staff who I initially called on the phone didn't to have a clue how petrol pump authorisation works (although after all this, I feel like an expert)
3. When you contact them online you often receive a callback from an unidentifiable source asking for your security information
4. The "secure message" system results in online replies and subsequent follow ups are all via not so secure email and their replies don't include the original request. Plus replies all come through with changed subject lines which makes threading conversations very hard. They need a proper, secure, ticketing system.
5. The 48 hour limit that Barclaycard claim is required by the FSA is false.
6. Barclaycard on the 2nd December said they'd contact me again by 4th January 2012. I assume at this point they panicked and realised they'd break the 8 week FSA deadline if it took that long, which is why I got a reply just one week days later well before the 4th January date they said to me.

(As an aside I might as well mention another problem I've had - if you catch their online system at the wrong time you can get anomalies suggesting that you're statement balance gets duplicated in the "new transactions" section making it look like you've spent more than you have - see this screen capture You'd think banks would have mastered transaction atomicity by now)

The letter came with the feedback leaflet which I've shown a photo of in the middle of this article. I shall fill it in and send the address of this blog entry to them. If anyone from Barclaycard wishes to convince me to stay (frankly, it's almost certain to be too late, but maybe if they let me try their PayTag system - after all they should have a record of me asking about their plans in this area) or someone high up wants me to test their customer services some more, then feel free to get in touch. With a dislike of banks at an all time low, they need to do better to retain our custom, and not let long time customers down like this.