A written quote from an employee of Croydon Council concerning the £82 I give them each month:
"With regards to your high Council Tax bill, 11pence per month from each household is given to Streetscene Services for street cleansing, refuse collection, recycling and minor highway repairs. The vast amount is given to Social Services, Education, GLA, Police, Fire and now the Olympics".
I now live in Thornton Heath which is plagued by fly tipping, litter throwing -by the local community- who seem to have no problem living in squalor- and extremely bad manners.
There is no concept of a bus queue here and even adults think it is acceptable to put feet on seats. I suspect some of them have children. What will they be learning from their parents?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Campaign to Reclaim Tooting Broadway.
Every working day and most weekends me and several thousand other pedestrians negotiate our way across the junction of Tooting High Street and Mitcham Road in SW17 to start the unpleasant tube journey into town. The vehicle traffic there is so badly behaved it is often like trying to cross Ramses Square in Cairo (or any road in Italy).
It seems like when the green walking man lights up, it's a signal for drivers to go - or fail to stop-.
Then there's the box junction.
Most drivers travelling through Tooting think a box junction must be for parking on because the last time they read a Highway Code was when they passed their test in 1978 or-for true morons- March 2007.
The result is that ambulances on emergencies are delayed getting to and from St Georges hospital; south London is often gridlocked and us pedestrians are faced with death defying traffic dodging just to get on the Northern line where we get on trains with drivers who have no sense of direction or safety either -judging by recent horror stories coming out of Camden-.
These points and others were relayed in the first instance by me to Wandsworth Council on Friday 8th June using their 'contact us' tab on the website. I merely asked if they were aware there might be a problem here.
The auto reply stated that the council could take up to 10 working days to respond.
That was OK by me.
Some 3 hours later I had a reply from Wandsworth plus an e-mail and voicemail message from the Met police. The council said they had passed my concerns on to TFL and the cops said they were fully aware of the bad behaviour of drivers at this junction and had already set up a unit on site to improve the situation. A local councillor had also complained which helps galvanise the authorities.
TFL responded 2 days later. (I had made the point that buses were as bad, if not worse, in jumping red lights there). They merely said they would get back to me in 10 to 20 working days (which is about the time it takes for London bus drivers to stop at red lights at Tooting Broadway junction).
Sniffing momentum, I put my observations to my MP Sadiq Khan. He had previously sent round this 'round Robin' circular thing about helping Tooting residents in their daily lives. It was unfortunate for Mr Khan that the Tooting Broadway thing was in my radar when his leaflet came through the door.
A fast response from someone titled 'Case Worker for Sadiq Khan MP' ensued. I am promised my MP will ask the same questions of the authorities I am asking.
I am asking for drivers at that junction to think rationally. A tall order indeed. I want irresponsible drivers to be fined or locked up. I want irresponsible bus drivers to be fired.
An on going project.
It seems like when the green walking man lights up, it's a signal for drivers to go - or fail to stop-.
Then there's the box junction.
Most drivers travelling through Tooting think a box junction must be for parking on because the last time they read a Highway Code was when they passed their test in 1978 or-for true morons- March 2007.
The result is that ambulances on emergencies are delayed getting to and from St Georges hospital; south London is often gridlocked and us pedestrians are faced with death defying traffic dodging just to get on the Northern line where we get on trains with drivers who have no sense of direction or safety either -judging by recent horror stories coming out of Camden-.
These points and others were relayed in the first instance by me to Wandsworth Council on Friday 8th June using their 'contact us' tab on the website. I merely asked if they were aware there might be a problem here.
The auto reply stated that the council could take up to 10 working days to respond.
That was OK by me.
Some 3 hours later I had a reply from Wandsworth plus an e-mail and voicemail message from the Met police. The council said they had passed my concerns on to TFL and the cops said they were fully aware of the bad behaviour of drivers at this junction and had already set up a unit on site to improve the situation. A local councillor had also complained which helps galvanise the authorities.
TFL responded 2 days later. (I had made the point that buses were as bad, if not worse, in jumping red lights there). They merely said they would get back to me in 10 to 20 working days (which is about the time it takes for London bus drivers to stop at red lights at Tooting Broadway junction).
Sniffing momentum, I put my observations to my MP Sadiq Khan. He had previously sent round this 'round Robin' circular thing about helping Tooting residents in their daily lives. It was unfortunate for Mr Khan that the Tooting Broadway thing was in my radar when his leaflet came through the door.
A fast response from someone titled 'Case Worker for Sadiq Khan MP' ensued. I am promised my MP will ask the same questions of the authorities I am asking.
I am asking for drivers at that junction to think rationally. A tall order indeed. I want irresponsible drivers to be fined or locked up. I want irresponsible bus drivers to be fired.
An on going project.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Take it High
Robin's story, below, is shocking, and it ably demonstrates his earlier point that taking a complaint right to the top will have an effect.
I have sent several letters of complaint, re issues about the use of incontinence pants, to the Royal Free Hospital. My last letter was sent after taking advice from Whine & Cheese members. I wrote to the Chair of the Trust and to six other heads of department within the Trust, as well as my MP, Glenda Jackson.
It was my second letter to Glenda, and this time she took action, sending a note to the hospital. The Chair of the Trust has now arranged for me to talk with three matrons about my concerns. While this isn't quite what I wanted - it seems to me that my concerns are well established and what they should be doing is getting someone to investigate in-house and come up with solutions or a written policy - I am happy to know what I have to say is being taken seriously.
Separately to this, my house insurance payments have just doubled. This is because I have made four claims in six years. Actually, the first 'claim' was an inquiry when I mislaid jewellery that I later found. I asked what I should do if I didn't find it. The second 'claim' was four years ago. The people next door insisted a leak from my house had caused damp in the party wall. I refuted this. The insurance sent an assessor who confirmed the leak was on their side.
Separately to this, I have made two real claims in the past two years: for a stolen iPod and a smashed laptop, but these are not, according to a LloydsTSB call centre person, reason enough for my premium doubling. "It's because you have had four claims, which increases the risk with your policy"
After Easter, I shall be writing to Victor Blank, head of LloydsTSB and to Archie G Kane who is Group Executive Director of Insurance and Investments. Other ideas welcome. Shyama
I have sent several letters of complaint, re issues about the use of incontinence pants, to the Royal Free Hospital. My last letter was sent after taking advice from Whine & Cheese members. I wrote to the Chair of the Trust and to six other heads of department within the Trust, as well as my MP, Glenda Jackson.
It was my second letter to Glenda, and this time she took action, sending a note to the hospital. The Chair of the Trust has now arranged for me to talk with three matrons about my concerns. While this isn't quite what I wanted - it seems to me that my concerns are well established and what they should be doing is getting someone to investigate in-house and come up with solutions or a written policy - I am happy to know what I have to say is being taken seriously.
Separately to this, my house insurance payments have just doubled. This is because I have made four claims in six years. Actually, the first 'claim' was an inquiry when I mislaid jewellery that I later found. I asked what I should do if I didn't find it. The second 'claim' was four years ago. The people next door insisted a leak from my house had caused damp in the party wall. I refuted this. The insurance sent an assessor who confirmed the leak was on their side.
Separately to this, I have made two real claims in the past two years: for a stolen iPod and a smashed laptop, but these are not, according to a LloydsTSB call centre person, reason enough for my premium doubling. "It's because you have had four claims, which increases the risk with your policy"
After Easter, I shall be writing to Victor Blank, head of LloydsTSB and to Archie G Kane who is Group Executive Director of Insurance and Investments. Other ideas welcome. Shyama
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The mean of 'Means Tested Benefits'
A friend is currently employed in a lowish paid job in London and receives a contribution towards his rent from his local council. This is called housing benefit. The rules stipulate that if his financial circumstances change he is to inform them immediately.
At the end of January, he got a small bonus from his employer and he dutifully wrote to the benefits office to tell them.
10 days later he received a letter from the benefits office telling him an officer will call at his home to review his claim. Could he please make available his birth certificate, passport, drivers licence, a utility bill, the last 2 bank statements, certificate of savings and the last 2 pay slips for the officer to check.
The officer attended and during the interview she expressed surprise my friend had not declared the fact that his rent had increased by 12% 6 months previously and also that he no longer received working tax credit. Both of which could lead to his being able to claim more housing benefit.
My friend replied that he thought he should only inform the council when things got better not worse.
He provided all of the documentary evidence except the payslip for January, which had been mislaid. Given that he provided November’s and December’s plus the fact he had written to them in January anyway and specifically informed them of the bonus as well as showing the council officer attending, his January bank statement with the salary amount visible, he thought the documentation provided was more than sufficient.
A week later a letter from the benefits office arrived at his door and in an accusatory tone he was informed that "It has been drawn to our attention that your circumstances have changed and because we think this might lead to our making an overpayment we are suspending benefit pending an investigation, effective immediately".
It is generally accepted that people who claim and receive benefits do so because they need them. It does not take much intelligence to understand that to have them withheld would most likely cause hardship and to have them suspended without notice would definitely cause hardship. My friend had already proved he was a reasonable, honest person because he had not declared the rent increase, nor the cancellation of tax credits but had given accurate information about an improvement in his situation-at least for the month of February-.
He enquired by e-mail and letter why they felt the need to suspend benefits under these circumstances but forwarded a substitute payslip anyway.
They received this letter along with more payslips for the past 9 months on 12th March 2007 by which time his income for the month was down by 20% and without any notice whatsoever.
He received no reply for some time and as a direct result of this suspension he was behind with his rent for the first time.
When he phoned the benefits office and asked why, under the circumstances, they had suspended his benefit they replied "because we can".
This was now a crisis. To resolve it he wrote them a strong letter demanding an explanation which he copied to two councillors in his ward. In it he said if this was not resolved within 48 hours he would take it up with the relevant secretary of State via his local MP as well as contacting the ombudsman.
7 days later he received his benefit -which had been increased as a result of the information he had given and despite their apparent concern they might make an overpayment-.
He is still waiting for an explanation of their behaviour so the ombudsman threat remains.
More on this later.....
At the end of January, he got a small bonus from his employer and he dutifully wrote to the benefits office to tell them.
10 days later he received a letter from the benefits office telling him an officer will call at his home to review his claim. Could he please make available his birth certificate, passport, drivers licence, a utility bill, the last 2 bank statements, certificate of savings and the last 2 pay slips for the officer to check.
The officer attended and during the interview she expressed surprise my friend had not declared the fact that his rent had increased by 12% 6 months previously and also that he no longer received working tax credit. Both of which could lead to his being able to claim more housing benefit.
My friend replied that he thought he should only inform the council when things got better not worse.
He provided all of the documentary evidence except the payslip for January, which had been mislaid. Given that he provided November’s and December’s plus the fact he had written to them in January anyway and specifically informed them of the bonus as well as showing the council officer attending, his January bank statement with the salary amount visible, he thought the documentation provided was more than sufficient.
A week later a letter from the benefits office arrived at his door and in an accusatory tone he was informed that "It has been drawn to our attention that your circumstances have changed and because we think this might lead to our making an overpayment we are suspending benefit pending an investigation, effective immediately".
It is generally accepted that people who claim and receive benefits do so because they need them. It does not take much intelligence to understand that to have them withheld would most likely cause hardship and to have them suspended without notice would definitely cause hardship. My friend had already proved he was a reasonable, honest person because he had not declared the rent increase, nor the cancellation of tax credits but had given accurate information about an improvement in his situation-at least for the month of February-.
He enquired by e-mail and letter why they felt the need to suspend benefits under these circumstances but forwarded a substitute payslip anyway.
They received this letter along with more payslips for the past 9 months on 12th March 2007 by which time his income for the month was down by 20% and without any notice whatsoever.
He received no reply for some time and as a direct result of this suspension he was behind with his rent for the first time.
When he phoned the benefits office and asked why, under the circumstances, they had suspended his benefit they replied "because we can".
This was now a crisis. To resolve it he wrote them a strong letter demanding an explanation which he copied to two councillors in his ward. In it he said if this was not resolved within 48 hours he would take it up with the relevant secretary of State via his local MP as well as contacting the ombudsman.
7 days later he received his benefit -which had been increased as a result of the information he had given and despite their apparent concern they might make an overpayment-.
He is still waiting for an explanation of their behaviour so the ombudsman threat remains.
More on this later.....
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Arrival
The invitation from Whine and Cheese arrived at last. The welcome post was succinct indeed and I can add no more on the subject of our inaugural meeting except to write that the participants were extraordinarily tidy munchers and no wine was spilled. I usually need warning flags attached to my knife and fork....
I have done a little bit of basic research on the subject of whining. It seems that there is international, general condemnation of all so called 'customer services' departments with special criticism of those in the telecoms/ISP business. The consensus is that these departments were set up to defend the organization against attack in the face of poor performance of product or service. There is little attempt apparently at delivering the customer service brief which I in my niaivity think is to provide 'service recovery' (such as a refund, replacement, compensation, apology or a mix from these).
So it might be that an effective whine needs to bypass customer services entirely.
They are staffed by script readers rather than decision makers and it is the decision makers who can deliver the solution the whiner is seeking. I suppose it makes sense in the first instance for the whiner to have a clear idea of what he or she wants from the miscreant organization.
This idea should be in the bounds of commercial reality though. In law, compensation is mostly about setting the claimant back to the financial position they were in before they bought the product or service. Anything above that is a bonus.
A German friend who, like me is a buying manager, said to me he applies the same rules to his personal purchases as he does in his business responsibilities. In a nutshell he is ruthless towards any organization which delivers substandard service or product regardless. I identify with this approach but recognise that in B2B we often deal with dedicated account managers/directors who are much easier to get a result from than a faceless customer services assistant/supervisor/manager.
So there; back we are to stepping over the call centre completely.
But each claim will probably need a tailored approach and not all customer service operations are rubbish and also as mentioned in the welcome post, there are the very serious, moral issues concerning all of us about poor health care, the dignity of the human condition and the treatment of the vulnerable. We sometimes have to support our fellows as well as ourselves.
That's also a part of this group.
Delivered.
I have done a little bit of basic research on the subject of whining. It seems that there is international, general condemnation of all so called 'customer services' departments with special criticism of those in the telecoms/ISP business. The consensus is that these departments were set up to defend the organization against attack in the face of poor performance of product or service. There is little attempt apparently at delivering the customer service brief which I in my niaivity think is to provide 'service recovery' (such as a refund, replacement, compensation, apology or a mix from these).
So it might be that an effective whine needs to bypass customer services entirely.
They are staffed by script readers rather than decision makers and it is the decision makers who can deliver the solution the whiner is seeking. I suppose it makes sense in the first instance for the whiner to have a clear idea of what he or she wants from the miscreant organization.
This idea should be in the bounds of commercial reality though. In law, compensation is mostly about setting the claimant back to the financial position they were in before they bought the product or service. Anything above that is a bonus.
A German friend who, like me is a buying manager, said to me he applies the same rules to his personal purchases as he does in his business responsibilities. In a nutshell he is ruthless towards any organization which delivers substandard service or product regardless. I identify with this approach but recognise that in B2B we often deal with dedicated account managers/directors who are much easier to get a result from than a faceless customer services assistant/supervisor/manager.
So there; back we are to stepping over the call centre completely.
But each claim will probably need a tailored approach and not all customer service operations are rubbish and also as mentioned in the welcome post, there are the very serious, moral issues concerning all of us about poor health care, the dignity of the human condition and the treatment of the vulnerable. We sometimes have to support our fellows as well as ourselves.
That's also a part of this group.
Delivered.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Welcome
Welcome to The Whine and Cheese Club blog. We had our first meeting on Tuesday March 8th in north west London, and somehow, out of all the rhetoric and the ranting, the scoffing and the surmising, the outrage, the outpourings, the olives, the treacle tart and the red wine, an idea was put into action - the establishment of a Club with the express aim of making life a little bit better, not just for the members but for everyone whose jaw clenches with anxiety or frustration when faced with the red tape and idiot-card inspired information that turns everyday irritations into insurmountable obstacles. Our inaugural whines included a correspondence with The Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, over the inhumane issue of incontinence pants to elderly patients who are not incontinent, and a ding-dong with Stuart Rose over the threadcount in M&S socks. The first whine, by Shyama, resulted in a series of fob offs from customer relations managers working for the NHS trust. The general consensus within the group was that the issue, which had been laid to rest with the untimely death of the patient around whom the complaint was made, should be pursued because of the impact on all patients within The Royal Free. The second complaint had, however, elicited an immediate result. Our whiner, Peter, having sent the offending sock to Mr Rose with an explanation that it had developed a hole after one wash, was sent a cheque for £10. While this does not relieve the problem to which he drew attention, it does at least compensate for the irritation. We had a proxy whine from Hashida, who read us a letter her mother had sent to complain about the rudeness of a care worker on a community bus. A broad sweep of interest areas emerged as our conversation continued. Karen left us all in a state of disbelief while describing how she had been issued with a notice for flytipping because she left sealed rubbish by an overflowing municipal bin. Robin instructed us that the best people to approach when making complaints are those at the top who have dedicated staff investigating consumer issues. Reilly, another vociferous complainer, talked about wider campaigns and making the personal political. Krista's view was that all complaints have a validity beyond the personal and therefore all subject matter is fair game. Indeed, that was the general view, with the caveat that complaints must be genuine and not manifestations of inner turmoil, midlife crisis or an inability to deal with the everyday! Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday April 17th. If you'd like to affiliate to our group, please leave a message. Thanks:-) Shyama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)