CUNNING WHEEZES

[Stanley]

During my abortive attempts to contact Yodel, the courier who has failed to deliver my printer and has a completely automated complaints system, both email and telephone, I have been struck by the cunning wheeze whereby they try to ensure they never have to speak to a customer. No telephone numbers on the documentation but I found one on the website 'Find a number'. It worked but after being on hold for ten minutes I gave up. The 'automated system' has not responded after three communications, one by phone and two by email. Result is I have no idea when I can expect them to try again, the system promised Friday but it never materialised. Can you imagine the frustration? I shall be active today.....!

[Tripps]

In total contrast - My Tesco order was late last week, so I rang the help line to see why. Got through immediately to a very nice woman in Dundee ( I think she was Janet in Dr Findlays casebook), to confirm that the order had been received. She apologised, confirmed the order, and said - " I'll just ring the van driver, and call you back."
She rang back just as the order arrived about ten minutes later. There was a nice post script. Without any prompting , and no fuss, the delivery charge was refunded.

[Stanley]

Wonderful! It shows that these systems can work if the company makes the investment in staff to man the interface. Yodel phone line still on hold, I suspect that this is part of the cunning wheeze to avoid face to face communication. What evidence is there that there are any 'agents?" Another thing, how much of the 10p per minute call charge ends up in their pockets? Rang Dabs and got straight through to a nice lady who called me Love, smacked Yodel's bottom and rang me back to say it would be delivered this morning. She was not surprised by my problem, I suspect she is Dabs' first line of defence against the courier. I am not clapping hands yet, I'll believe it when I see it! Another thing struck me, have I got progress because I am a savvy and grumpy old man? How would someone less equipped to pursue the matter go on?

[Stanley]

This caught my eye, cunning wheezes found out by using Wikipedia. Have a look at this LINK and then Google 'Guttenberg Thesis'. This latter refers to the case og the German Defence Minister who was found to have plagiarised about 95% of his doctoral thesis after analysis of the copy on Wikipedia, he resigned and later left the country. It looks as though the ploy is spreading and being used as a political tool. The moral is beware, thy sins will find thee out!

[Tizer]

I'm glad to see that at last the Consumers' Association has highlighted the phone charges imposed by so many companies on their customers, especially when the customer is calling to make a complaint. `"It is unbelievable that companies would add insult to injury by charging their customers a premium to make a complaint," said Richard Lloyd, Which? executive director.' LINK

[Stanley]

The first time I saw this ploy was when I noted a few years ago that the DVLC had applied a premium number to the line you could ring to report an untaxed car. I got Gordon {Prentice who was our MP then to ask about this but he got a dusty answer about subsidising administrative costs. One would have thought that this line, above all others, would have been free!
Another area that needs looking at is the offering of attractive rates to new customers which are not available to existing clients.

[Stanley]

Well, we've seen a few in the last few days haven't we. Question is do the banks have Cunning Wheeze forums? How do these ploys to make more money arise? Who gives the OK to them? From what prople like Mr Hester say it would appear that it isn't the top management. Another question, do we believe them? Can we trust them to tell the truth? Answers on a post card......

[Tizer]

...and here is the answer on a postcard. They don't need Cunning Wheeze forums - there are always some people, in any organisation (even the Church), who have lower ethical standards than others and will wish to go beyond the limits. it's up to the others, the ones with high standards, to keep control. The trouble begins when the low-ethics people get into higher management positions. But then you have to ask "Who thought it was OK to appoint them to the higher position?"

[Stanley]

Quite! See the £1.9billion fine the US have just exacted from Smith Kline Glaxo for 'the biggest health fraud in US history'. That's what I call retribution for sins committed!

[Tizer]

Yes, this is the `off-label marketing' that I wrote about, probably last year, on the old OG site. It was being discussed as unethical in science magazines but hadn't got into the mainstream press then (`You heard it first on One Guy!'[/i
Here is the BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18673220

[Stanley]

I reckon the current CW is the BBA keeping stum while the flak passes over their heads en route for Diamond Bob.

[Stanley]

Splendid example of a cunning wheeze crops up in the current HSBC money-laundering case. In 1993, responding to the same charge, HSBC grovelled almost word for word the same as the current grovel. One of the US senators on the committee must have read the files because he pointed this out to the investigation. So there we have the CW, if caught, grovel and carry on the same as before. Unfortunately for HSBC it looks as though this time it's not going to work. Their Head of 'Compliance' has bitten the dust and it looks as though a massive fine is in the offing.
Apart from anything else, I suspect there is an element of reprisal embedded in this matter. For years, the fact that due to its time zone and traditional expertise/probity the City of London has had an unassailable position as a world centre of finance. The recent scandals are eroding this and perhaps the City isn't as well run as the bankers said it was. This should be the most worrying aspect of the current situation for both the bankers and the government.

[Whyperion]

Thought HSBC wanted to re-locate its HQ to China ( Shanghai ? ) as that was were the money was to be made. Actually wasn't the start of HSBC something to do with the opium trade back in the C19th ?

[Stanley]

Another massive CW. Reports this morning that a minimum of £21trillion is stashed away in off shore accounts in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. The world has gone mad to allow this amount of money to be sterilised by taking it out of the world economy. (I think they said this was the equivalent of the national economies of the US and Japan combined.... Incomprehensible!)

[Stanley]

What do you do if you're caught out being in charge of a flawed security system whereby a young lad can get on a plane and fly to Rome without any documentation or ticket? Simples! 'Suspend' the staff involved and then go on television to apologise and assure everyone that you are constantly learning lessons and raising standards. Question.... Who was in charge, presumably ensuring that the system was working efficiently?
Who put the firewall in place that protects senior management?

[Stanley]

Paul Lewis highlighted the scam whereby the caller doesn't hang up and whatever you dial goes right back to them. Definitely a cunning wheeze!

[Stanley]

Time we revived this one! Choosing which country to declare your profits in to minimise tax take. Counting hospital bed occupancy in the middle of the night to get the lowest figure. Giving a national average to prove that hospitals aren't overcrowded when local circumstances can lead to some having far higher rates.UBS blaming a 'rogue trader for the enormous loss in London trading when the fault actually lies with how they motivate the trades and whether they listen to their risk assessors when the profits are flowing in.

[Tizer]

Another cunning wheeze...insurance companies are bumping up the motor premiums for drivers who have reported an accident even though it was not their fault. An example was reported in The Times and the journalist contacted the insurance company to say it seemed unreasonable. The company defended itself by explaining that someone who had been involved in a motor accident (no matter whose fault) was at more risk of being in a second accident than someone with no accidents on their record. The Times related this information as the reason without making any real analysis or criticism. The truth is that it's rubbish, the misunderstanding of statistics again, by both the insurance companies and The Times journalists. They are confusing `population risk' with `individual risk'. Statisticians work with `populations', such as all people over 65, all black dogs, all diabetes sufferers. In the motor insurance case the population is all those drivers who have already been involved in a motor accident. It may well be true that this population has a greater risk of another accident than those who've had no accidents (which is the other population in the comparison); the higher risk population may contain more `bad' drivers, less experienced drivers, people who slam their brakes on when someone tailgates them etc. But this doesn't mean that a given individual in that population who have had an accident is any more at risk than other drivers; it's only justifiable to describe them as higher risk if you have specific evidence that the individual drives in a riskier way than others. And someone pulling out a couple of feet in front of you and causing a crash doesn't mean you are riskier. So, one heck of a big cunning wheeze, making millions of pounds for the insurance industry and completely without foundation. Now, the question is, do the insurance people know what they are doing is wrong but connive to keep it quiet while the extra cash rolls in, or are they just ignorant of statistics? If they don't understand statistics then they shouldn't be using it as a basis for their premiums - and perhaps they shouldn't be selling insurance.

[Stanley]

Being an old cynic (or realist) I would assume that they are simply using a cunning wheeze manufactured by their 'Here's a good excuse' department. Think of charges for account management by most financial instruments. Remember Doc and his policies? I asked him the other day how he'd gone on sorting them out. As we suspected he was surprised at the management charges being levied on some of them so he has taken steps to stop the haemorrhage. Profit is all and these people will take any opportunity, no matter how suspect, to increase the take. Exactly the same principle that pay day loan companies use to extract their enormous interest rates.

[EileenDavid]

Any reason at all to get more money out of the general public. Dave reported an accident, someone run in the back of him, didn't claim anything as there was no damage to his car but just informed them as a matter of courtesy, but didn't stop them putting his premium up. I had the same problem on my House/All risks policy, I lost a gold bracelet reported it to the police and then it was found a few days later. I phoned the insurance company and cancelled the claim but they didn't remove it from my file and my premium went up, they brought it down again after I pointed out the facts.

Dave also got caught in the scam were a car in front stops abruptly with another car at the back to witness, the Asian gang that perpetrated this scam have now been caught but it took over two years after Dave's car was written off. Our garage mechanic new about the scam so how come the insurance companies didn't? It's because they sit in their offices and it's easier to number crunch and get Joe public to pay the bill. Eileen

[Tizer]

Dead right Eileen. They even go a step further - if you simply enquire in a hypothetical way "What if I had a bump but didn't claim..." there are reports of them raising the premium, still using the argument that if you've asked you must be a bigger risk.

By the way, some people might take issue with what I said above about population versus individual risk and point out that all those people who've been flooded are charged higher premiums - aren't they equivalent to the ones who've been in accidents? No, those who've been flooded have been proved to have a higher flood risk and we can identify the precise cause of the risk (e.g. the river) whereas in the case of the person hit by another car we have no evidence they are at greater risk than the rest of the population. The insurance companies, of course, would try to wheedle their way out of this argument but we have to be firm with them otherwise where will it all end? I can imagine them extending the cunning wheeze by playing with data and finding all sorts of statistical relationships, it's easy to do in practice. For example, if you broke down motor accident data into populations of differing hair colour you'll probably find the groups differ in their risk, even if only because there are different numbers of people in the populations. The difference in risk might only be slight but the companies could still claim, e.g. `black-haired people are a bigger risk than those of other hair colour' and then boost the premiums of black-haired people.

[Stanley]

I read things like the above responses and than my lucky stars that due to the simplification of life that comes with old age I only have a contents insurance and my broker Swinton always provides me with a reasonable quotation. As for all the rest, they are gone. When I sold my car and kicked my licence into touch I realised how many niggles I had put up with over the years. I know that many can't do this, they need a car because of their location. Lots to be said for living in a little house five minutes from the shops on level going! My commiserations to all of you.

[Tripps]

Here's a reverse "cunning wheeze".
My Plusnet bill went up by quite a bit. They withdrew the discount I got a year ago when I last moaned. I had a look around and found John Lewis were offering a better deal, with anytime phone calls including 0845 and 0870 numbers. I rang Plusnet for a MAC transfer number, and was put through to the "disgruntled department".
Can I ask where you are going too? I told him, and he immediately offered free upgrade to anytime calls, and halved the broadband fee. Result - Plusnet now £2 per month less than JL for the same service, and no changeover hassle. All only for a year though, but I''ll phone before it ends next time.

[Stanley]

David, isn't that a perfect example of how simple matters are made more complicated these days. I think it's a product of age, but I hate having to continually check what I am paying. I'm not necessarily after the 'best deal' because in my experience there is usually a catch. I want a quiet stable life and all these changes don't help me achieve it.

[Tizer]

Tripps, I must thank you for prompting me to contact Plusnet about my account. I've been with them since 2007 and, as you know, I've been very pleased with their service and it doesn't seem to have got much more expensive for me. But I had a look at the John Lewis accounts you mentioned and noticed that although the price wasn't much different to my Plusnet one they were offering a much higher Gigabyte bandwidth than my account. So I got onto PN and told them about JL's offering and I got my bandwith increased by 5x and a couple of pounds a month off the account itself. Then the man looked at the phone part of my deal, we discussed it and I got £2 off that too. We're usually assiduous about comparing insurance premiums but I hadn't done anything about the broadband because it's all been fairly steady, no problems etc. There's an extra benefit too - Mrs Tiz is pleased that the bandwidth is increased so that I'm less likely to be saying "Watch out, we're nearing our monthly broadband limit!" You've increased marital harmony in the Tizer household - well done!