auction for altzeimers

[#1]

Tony I am not sticking up for them, but their cranky faults procedure is that when you have completed certain checks using the "report a faullt" thingy, this sets in progress an auto check which then calls out BT.  If you never completed that set of checks, that is why they kept on asking you to do them again.
If you had been a bit more open with the forum what was actually wrong, a lot of people would have held you hand and walked you through the checks - and none of them would have been PN employees

[#2]

I couldn't get onto the forum as my speed was as low as 31Kbps and would have taken forever to load which is why I phoned PN and did the test while on the phone to them.  I explained that I had already done them but they just insisted that I do them again and again.  I do believe that I would have got a better answer from the forum, but, with those speeds and mistakenly thinking that the people I was speaking to on the phone knew what they were doing, phoning seemed the more logical option at the time, however with hine sight, I wish I had come straight here.

[#3]

Almost every business that works well do so by building a good relationship.
For a business like plusnet, where you don't have contact for most of the time, you have to examine the occasions when you *do* have those contacts, and see what you can do to build relationships.
Tell me this - how many people on here get a pretty good feeling for the way Plusnet do things *on the forum here*? How many people they help, dig to the bottom of the story, and get things sorted? I'm hoping that the majority of readers have the same answer as me - PN's DCT are working well, and it comes across. Yes, I know some people won't have that answer, and are here on the forum precisely because the relationship through other means has broken down... Yet the DCT do a good job of trying to sort those cases out too.
Then think about why. And somewhere in there is the fact that the relationships are with individuals, who remembers some history - and helps to build trust and faith (in both directions).
The problem with the phone system and the ticket system is that it is open to being thoroughly impersonal (and that's not just restricted to PlusNet's). It takes more than one call, ticket entry to even start building a relationship - and a system where any Tom, Dick or Harry can take over a conversation is one where a relationship starts again. There is no trust or faith in the other side - and (as others have said) being told to repeat previous actions is a great way to remove any residual relationship that was there.
A ticket system that farms work items out  to anyone is merely designed to be efficient (which usually means cost-efficient). A ticket system that farms work items to the same employee each time is one designed to build a relationship.
Of course, no-one can know whether a ticket or call is going to be a "relationship-building" (or -destroying) one at first; it takes a while to determine that. But perhaps tony8436 has the right idea here - if a ticket gets older than a certain age, it should automatically be treated differently. For these tickets, the relationship starts to become more important than mere action - so it becomes ever more important to make calls back on time, to get a single interation if possible, and to be able to get a free & fast flow of information (my personal bugbear is the tickets going to the back of the queue when you add extra information). In general, someone might be willing to wait 30 hours to get their first response to the ticket, but not every time they post an update to a ticket that is already a week old.

[#4]

Quote

Adam, the answer of how to avoid this is simple.  If a problem lasts more than say a week, have one person at PN take charge of it, rather than a different person every day telling me to do the same tests I have done time and time again

I'm a big advocate of taking ownership of protracted issues and always have been, I agree that being more proactive in our approach to that would be good. The only issue I can see with us doing that on every single fault is that it may not be feasible. With that in mind though agents are already encouraged to take ownership where possible and it is left down to their discretion and the merits of each case, I will do what I can to raise awareness of this.

[#5]

Adam,
I understand that it is not feasable to do this with every fault, that is why I suggested older than a week, but you may have a different timescale in mind.  However, for the faults that are rectified in a good time, there is no need for this.  If I had been kept informed of what was happening, phoned back when I was told I would be and not asked to repeat tests, this issue would have been over a lot quicker and I would probably have a warm feeling about PN.  Once I got a speed that I was able to access the internet with, I did notice that the ticket had been updated by CS several times, but with the speeds I was getting during the fault, it became almost impossible to get to the ticket to find the replies.

[#6]

Thanks for the feedback,

Quote

I understand that it is not feasible to do this with every fault

unfortunately that is true, I was trying to say that it's not really possible for all faults over a week I'm afraid, these are the facts we must face but I do think that we should be using our discretion to better effect here.
I will feedback to our faults team that less emphasis on ticket updates and more on telephone contacts for faults like the one you experienced could be a much more sensible idea.