 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Cacciatore wrote: |
InghamsHolidays, welcome to sH  and fair play to you for sticking your head over the parapet. |
^ +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Mistress Panda, Back in the late 1970's we went across the channel from Calais to Dover in a force 10 gusting to 12, this was in an old ship far more seaworthy than the moddern slab sided giants, the waves were so heavy that the ship almost came to a stop every seventh wave or so, the doors out to the side decks had been roped shut because going onto the deck in those conditions would have been fatal, the forward lounge was shut because they were worried a wave would break the heavy glass windows and the trip was like a massive slow rollercoaster, people were so sick that the toilets overflowed and I'd guess 90% of the passengers and a good number of crew were violently ill, my mother was one of those not sick, she claimed that she simly imagined she was skiing a mogul field! When we got to Dover we had to wait nearly 2 hours outside the harbour whilst they moved ships inside the harbour where they were sensibly sheltering to give us a berth, but we survived, didn't even think about claiming compensation.
35 plus years later I can still vividly remember that trip though I cannot remember much else about the holiday
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Personally I'm a bit sceptical as CG obviously is over the need for a Director to be involved in this. It does smack of "quick roll out the big guns as we've got a social media problem potentially".
InghamsHolidays, do we take it that you've no automatic procedures for compensating customers in these "cases" where your staff (or your appointed contractor) have caused damage to customers' property? Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
my experience with BA was that they wouldn't give me money but offered to pay for a replacement bag and would only refund once I showed the receipt for it.
|
BA did this for me. BA trashed an old cheap case. I claimed and they sent me a lovely new Antler case as a replacement. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
D G Orf, That sounds AWFUL! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Flet©h, something similar from Crystal - daughter wasn't happy though. The new case wasn't pink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dobby, LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Flet©h, something similar from Crystal - daughter wasn't happy though. The new case wasn't pink
|
Similar for me actually, the case trashed was my then girlfriend's. Although the Antler was worth 5 times what she paid for the old one from TK Maxx and was a lot nicer it apparently "wasn't quite the same" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
Personally I'm a bit sceptical as CG obviously is over the need for a Director to be involved in this. It does smack of "quick roll out the big guns as we've got a social media problem potentially".
InghamsHolidays, do we take it that you've no automatic procedures for compensating customers in these "cases" where your staff (or your appointed contractor) have caused damage to customers' property? Why not? |
The thread isn't about CG's holiday so I doubt thats what Inghams are dealing with. They've got a problem and are trying to deal with it while limiting the fallout. Nothing wrong with that and probably time to let it rest untill they do... or would you prefer they do nothing so you can just have a go at them for that instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flet©h, ditto TKMAxx too! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
the waves were so heavy that the ship almost came to a stop every seventh wave or so
|
This little clip should fill the time while we wait for Inghams to get back to us...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dd_1305213553
the scenes once inside the ship are unbelievable
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Wed 15-01-14 16:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| Quote: |
the waves were so heavy that the ship almost came to a stop every seventh wave or so
|
This little clip should fill the time while we wait for Inghams to get back to us...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dd_1305213553 |
When I'm crewing yachts out of Southampton we tend to amuse ourselves as we head down towards the Solent by working out just how seaworthy and how much fun in a good Biscay storm some of the cruise ships are. Put it like this I've yet to spot a liner I'd rather be on than the yacht I'm crewing in 'interesting' seas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
davkt, Id have thought stuff like chairs and tables would have been fixed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
This is the most ridiculous case (sic) of thread drift to date: a thread about a damaged case on an aircraft mutating into 'the perfect storm'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
fatbob, give them a chance at least. It's a positive thing they are looking at it. I for one am impressed they are taking it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| monkey wrote: |
| fatbob, give them a chance at least. It's a positive thing they are looking at it. I for one am impressed they are taking it seriously. |
Yep I'll ultimately judge them by a swift and appropriate resolution - it's just a bit of a bone of contention that so many businesses in the "customer service" field have a policy of obfuscating and stalling or imposing impossibly bureaucratic rules when a customer has a genuine complaint and it doesn't seem fair that it's only those willing to play the most public "name and shame" game are the ones who get dealt with by staff sufficiently empowered to solve rather than spin out problems. Way of the world though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| InghamsHolidays wrote: |
| Quote: |
Anyway, on my return I contacted Inghams and asked them to replace the case (it's a £60-ish standard large black pull-on-wheels thing).
|
A Director from our Head Office is currently looking into this. We will get back to you via our Guest Services team. |
Guest Services contacted me yesterday. Nothing as yet today.
Someone up thread said something about a receipt - what Inghams want is the receipt for the case that is damaged ie to prove that I bought it.
This is actually what annoyed me the most, because it's mad (who keeps receipts for several years?) and because it seems to me - I could be wrong, Inghams? - to be a clear fob-off tactic, designed to knock back the average holidaymaker who might not know the law, or might just thing ah s0d it, what's the point.
But the law is pretty clear.
All a receipt is is a way - one way - of short-cutting evidence.
Yes, it's proof that you bought something, and on the way towards being proof that you own it.
But it's not the only proof - I can stand in the witness box and swear I own the bl00dy suitcase, and the court is probably going to believe me, with or without a receipt.
It's like that old thing where you buy a watch and they say the strap is not covered by the guarantee.
(This happened to me.)
The strap broke after three months, I took it back to the shop, they did this whole 'Sorry the strap's not covered by the guarantee, we clearly stated that when you bought it' spiel.
To which my reply was, 'Yep, you did clearly state that, but so what? It's an unfair term under the Unfair Contract Terms Act [or whatever it was, it's now been superseded by even stricter EC legislation; this was back when I was at university, reading law, I was full of it] and unfortunately Smiths The Jewellers can write whatever they like in their contracts, it's the law of the land that matters.'
I got a new watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think it's the age and value they're interested in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
northernsoulboy, I really admire your stand for what is right and what is wrong. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| northernsoulboy wrote: |
Rep was in a bbit of a panic as we had already missed our flight to Innsbruck (snow and accidents), had to drive on to Salzburg and when we got there there was a plane standing on the runway waiting for us having been delayed for an hour or so already
|
Sorry to hear about your suitcase & it's irritating to be fobbed off like that, but I'd give them a bit of credit for getting you home. Sounds like they had a bit of a logistical nightmare going on..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once bought a kettle off Sainsburys - about £20. It broke soon after...they refused to do anything about it as I didnt have a reciept (they could have checked my nectar card as Im sure that would have shown it). I contacted the manufacturer and they sent me a new one and told me to cut the plug off the old one and put it in the bin. I didnt shop at Sainsburys for 9 months (it nearly killed me having to go to Morrisons lol) but it cost Sainsburys thousands so I felt better. First Choice telesales guy told lies about closeness of creche to hotel - it was an £11k holiday. Never used them since. Big Companies do take the mick sometimes.
genepi, it was their job to get him home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, Of course, but it doesn't sound a straight forward transfer - just saying they at least deserve a little credit for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I really admire your stand for what is right and what is wrong. Keep up the good work. |
Yes I agree, this one's right up there with slavery as a wrong that must be righted.
Inghams are in Godalming which is convenient for about 85% of s so I suggest we all meet up there at midday tomoz and burn a symbolic item of luggage while chanting an amusing jingle until the CEO of Customer Cases comes down and reimburses northernsoulboy for the full amount whatever that was.
I can't make it personally as sadly I have to go to Verbier but I'll happily coordinate via twitter #headcase
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| I think it's the age and value they're interested in. |
But that shouldn't really matter. The case is no longer fit for purpose, and was damaged by the coach driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I haven't read the second page so apologies if someone has pointed out the obvious:
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS HONEST. THERE ARE A LOT OF SCUM.
Some of those scum make a habit of subsidising their income via fraud. It might be claiming for a camera that never got stolen; agreeing to claim for a whiplash injury from a carcrash that wasn't actually bad; inflating the cost of something that was damaged etc etc.
I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some peasant on this forum blithely mentioning something they added on to a claim " to help pay for the holiday etc. I'm ashamed to say some of my acquaintances have claimed to do it in the past.
That is why companies don't stick the cheque in the post the minute you get on the phone to complain to them. If they did then they'd have to increase the price of holidays to make up for it.
So give Inghams a break will you. It's not them to blame for this sorry situation.
And next time you know someone who is inflating or inventing an insurance claim, or making a claim to a tour op for a non existent breakage.
Shoot them.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hells Bells wrote: |
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| I think it's the age and value they're interested in. |
But that shouldn't really matter. The case is no longer fit for purpose, and was damaged by the coach driver. |
Yes it should. If you were having to stump up to replace with similar, you'd be keen too.
And I agree - it's the number of fraudulent claims drives this attitude
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| genepi wrote: |
I'd give them a bit of credit for getting you home. Sounds like they had a bit of a logistical nightmare going on.. |
Eh? That's pretty much the least I expect of the company I have paid to get me home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| I think it's the age and value they're interested in. |
We're not talking about a car where there is significant depreciation and a second-hand value to consider.
It's a suitcase, used once a year for three or four years. Pretty much good as new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| red 27 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I really admire your stand for what is right and what is wrong. Keep up the good work. |
Yes I agree, this one's right up there with slavery as a wrong that must be righted.
Inghams are in Godalming which is convenient for about 85% of s so I suggest we all meet up there at midday tomoz and burn a symbolic item of luggage while chanting an amusing jingle until the CEO of Customer Cases comes down and reimburses northernsoulboy for the full amount whatever that was.
I can't make it personally as sadly I have to go to Verbier but I'll happily coordinate via twitter #headcase |
I actually agree with this, and to be honest if someone else was on whingeing about a suitcase I'd probably be rolling my eyes.
But then, the fact is, I didn't wreck the bl00dy thing, and it will need replacing.
I'm fortunate that sixty quid is neither here nor there to me, but it's even more neither here nor there to a multinational business.
The only alternative to them paying for it is me paying for it and I don't see why I should.
But yes, I would be rolling my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| TheGeneralist wrote: |
I haven't read the second page so apologies if someone has pointed out the obvious:
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS HONEST. THERE ARE A LOT OF SCUM.
Some of those scum make a habit of subsidising their income via fraud. It might be claiming for a camera that never got stolen; agreeing to claim for a whiplash injury from a carcrash that wasn't actually bad; inflating the cost of something that was damaged etc etc.
I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some peasant on this forum blithely mentioning something they added on to a claim " to help pay for the holiday etc. I'm ashamed to say some of my acquaintances have claimed to do it in the past.
That is why companies don't stick the cheque in the post the minute you get on the phone to complain to them. If they did then they'd have to increase the price of holidays to make up for it.
So give Inghams a break will you. It's not them to blame for this sorry situation.
And next time you know someone who is inflating or inventing an insurance claim, or making a claim to a tour op for a non existent breakage.
Shoot them.
HTH |
Yeah, I understand this, though it's very obviously not a fraudulent claim (I don't think you'd get a QC to support you in a fraudulent claim for £60 - it would be a serious offence if uncovered, and his share would probably not be worth losing his career and possibly liberty over).
I don't agree that 'it's not [Inghams] to blame' though - they employed the transport firm who wrecked the case, so it kind of is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
northernsoulboy,
You obviously don't mix in the same circles as the Huhne's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
though it's very obviously not a fraudulent claim
|
It's obvious to you. But it's not obvious to Inghams. Don't you see that?
| Quote: |
(I don't think you'd get a QC to support you in a fraudulent claim for £60 - it would be a serious offence if uncovered,
|
Does Inghams at this stage have proof that the guy supporting your claim is a QC? If not then why the heck should they believe you? People who make fraudulent claims can quite easily say exactly the same thing. They can provide 'evidence' to support their claim. It is the claim assessor's (or whoever) job to poke and push to see if the story is watertight and whether the 'injured* party can back things up and has the evidence to support themselves; or if they just back down when they are challenged. That is what Inghams are doing here, they're doing a bit of due diligence here to try to judge whether you're trying it on.
| Quote: |
I don't agree that 'it's not [Inghams] to blame' though - they employed the transport firm who wrecked the case, so it kind of is
|
Nooooo, I mean that Inghams aren't to blame that we live in a society where you cannot just take someone's word for it when they say they've been wronged and want £60 compensation.
* I use the term in its broadest sense here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hells Bells wrote: |
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| I think it's the age and value they're interested in. |
But that shouldn't really matter. The case is no longer fit for purpose, and was damaged by the coach driver. |
It does matter because the essence of compensation (form a legal POV) is that it should put you back in the same position you were in.
So if you had a 20 year old case, they could fairly replace it with a similar quality 20 year old case. If you have a case which is only a year or two old, they should be replacing it with new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
TheGeneralist, Inghams haven't asked for proof that the witness is a QC. They have asked for a receipt from years ago. Obvious fob off tactic. If they asked for details of the QC, the rep and the driver then that would be understandable as an attempt to prove or disprove the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They have asked for a receipt as it's a standard opening gambit, which doesn't involve any effort from their part and will eliminate a certain percentage of the fraudsters.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that if you can provide a verifiable written statement from the QC then I expect they'll take that as well. If you do, and they don't then I'll chuck a tenner into the pot myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Whilst we're having an inghams rant!
A few months ago I entered a competition I guess sponsored by Inghams and ticked the box about getting offers etc - no worries
From time to time they send me offers/deals etc that I might be interested in - Fab - that's why I ticked the box..
Every single email is addressed "Dear Inghams guest" - not fine - I never have been an Inghams guest, so why do they address me in this way and more importantly is there CRM system incapable of discriminating between a compo free loader (like me) and someone who's travelled with them 12 times before, in which case their problems are worse than £60 on the OP's bag..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ago I got on the Metrolink without a ticket because the machine wouldn't take the huge pile of change I tried to use.
Revenue Protection got on the train and I got pulled off [the train]
Needless to say I was fuming. I was now late for my appointment because their poxy machine didn't work. The Revenue man didn't care. Took my address.
Got the fine a week later.
Sent them a very stroppy letter.
Got another letter reiterating the fine and telling me to pay up.
Sent them another stroppy letter, but with no more evidence that the machine had been faulty.
Got another letter apologising profusely and offering me a travel voucher to use in future.
There wasn't any new information came to light between the first letter and the second. They just figured that only people who really felt strongly that they'd been wronged would take it that far. Their policy was to fight until that point then capitulate.
My guess is that Inghams are doing something similar. If your suitcase had only been slightly damaged, or it hadn't actually cost you £60 or actually you'd been making the whole thing up then you'd probably have left it by now and found a more trusting company to go after. They're just hurdles they put in place to filter out the chaff.
So play the game and prove your case, any way you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
