Deaf customer,Vm don't do email,write to us or speak to us

[bigsanta11]

First off,i'm not sure if this subject is in the right section,anywhoo,i'll just quote what i have said in one of the VM news groups.


*i've added this extra part just now

I hope someone can help me here.

I recently received a letter,about upgrading my services for a few quid more a month,so i used VM's contact us webpage(*which gives the choice of phone,post or email through their Webpage*),and fired off my emailed reply (*including my asked for account password,to help verify me, DPA an all that :rolleyes: )*that i'd like to accept the deal.

The reason i used the contact us email,is because i'm unable to use telephones all together,unless they can transmit sign language ;),and i had included that fact in my email to VM,and so, asked them to contact me via my email address,which i included.


And the only contact i have had back is,wait for it,a telephone call ,on a member of family's phone that i USED TO USE as a contact,asking to speak to me,:(...........


This has happened before,when i had a problem with a direct debit,i used the contact us email page, explained my situation,yet had a response back asking me to speak to them on the phone...

So would any of you good people be able to push the right buttons in VM towers,as i really would like to take up the offer i was sent.

fraser


>> Hi Fraser,
>> >>
>> >> I'm very sorry to hear about this difficulty you've had in upgrading your
>> >> services. Your best point of call would be to write a letter to our
>> >> customer concern department outlining the situation. They will then be
>> >> able to action your upgrade of service.
>> >>
>> >> The address is
>> >>
>> >> Customer Concern Department
>> >> Matrix Court
>> >> Swansea
>> >> SA7 9BB
>> >>
>> >> Hope this is the answer / solution you were hoping for.
>> >>
>> >>
> >
> > Thank you,but i was hoping that i wouldn't need to do any letter
> > writing,hence VM's webpage ,outlining the various methods to contact them
> > by,and as such, i thought a major cable broadband supplier ,would not have
> > any difficulties in their customer's contacting them via their super fast
> > internet channel.
> >
> > We'll the years nearly up,and then my contract expires in january :)
> >

Hi again fraser,

The customer concern department doesn't have a direct email address I am
aware of. That is why I pointed to sending a letter to them.
Unfortunately it is due to Data Protection laws that phone calls are made;
Verbal contract.

If you sent a letter explaining the situation I'm sure then this could be
done by letter or email.:erm:



So,if you happen to be a VM customer with a disability,and want to change any of your services,expect to get a lower value of service ,compared to able bodied customers.


DDA (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_1) and all that
fraser

[BenMcr]

That's not right. You should be able to take up a deal via E-mail. If you can sign up for services online, you certainly should be abe to upgrade.

Could you use Typetalk?

[bigsanta11]

I don't have a land line buddy,so that's out!

Here's what the deal is, instead of me paying the £18 a month that i'm paying just for my 2mbit BB,for just £2 extra a month,VM will give me tv and a phone line,*,which i thought was a bargain.

Not so it seems:p:

*installation costs apply

[Milambar]

If they are indeed making no provision for disabled persons to contact them via other methods except telephones, then I believe they are committing an offense under the Disability Discriminations Act.

My next course of action if I were you, would be to contact your assigned social worker, or even a lawyer and ask if this is the case.

If VM are making no provisions for disabled persons, they face a very very large fine, and being forced to put procedures in by law.

[whydoIneedatech]

If they are indeed making no provision for disabled persons to contact them via other methods except telephones, then I believe they are committing an offense under the Disability Discriminations Act.

My next course of action if I were you, would be to contact your assigned social worker, or even a lawyer and ask if this is the case.

If VM are making no provisions for disabled persons, they face a very very large fine, and being forced to put procedures in by law.
So accepting incoming calls via Typetalk is failing to make provisions for disabled people and actually putting specific details on accounts regarding peoples disability when provided in writing by them is breaking the law.?

Do you honestly think any company nowadays would not have procedures in place regarding dealing with anyone with a disability as to do otherwise would leave them wide open to prosecution.

So before posting such things think twice and remember that you are not talking about a cornershop but a major company who have legal teams that ensure they adopt and have in place the correct procedures for dealing with customers disabilities.

[Milambar]

A very hostile, and rather unprofessional reaction from whydoineedatech, in my opinion, especially since I said "IF they are indeed..."

At no point did I say that they WERE failing to make provisions, which is why in the second paragraph I stated that I would ask a social worker (all disabled persons are usually assigned a social worker) to find out if this was the case.

Social workers would be aware of what provisions companies, especially major ones, had for avenues of communication with disabled customers. Avenues that aren't necessarily published publically.

So I would thank you for not putting words into my mouth.

[whydoIneedatech]

A very hostile, and rather unprofessional reaction from whydoineedatech, in my opinion, especially since I said "IF they are indeed..."

At no point did I say that they WERE failing to make provisions, which is why in the second paragraph I stated that I would ask a social worker (all disabled persons are usually assigned a social worker) to find out if this was the case.

Social workers would be aware of what provisions companies, especially major ones, had for avenues of communication with disabled customers. Avenues that aren't necessarily published publically.

So I would thank you for not putting words into my mouth.
I was not meaning to seem hostile so please accept my apology if offended, I was pointing out that all major companies have to follow strict procedures as regards disablilities otherwise they would quite rightly leave themselves wide open to prosecution.

All customers with a disablity have the provision to have this added onto their account so that we are aware at the beginning of the call.

If they have initially taken a phoneline and then are registered with Typetalk we are able to take the call as normal.

Maybe in order to facilitate the upgrade the OP could have a friend sit with them and when prompted for the password the OP could then say the password to the CSR.

[john coley]

Hi Fraser, as you have found Virgin Media is far from DDA compliant. I am blind, and am currently in the process of issuing proceedings in respect of s19 and s21 breaches. Don't let them mess you about. My best advice would be get in touch with the RNID. I imagine they'll have a legal section, and they'll be able to help you with this. Depending on how long this has been going on you may well be able to claim compensation from Virgin Media.
Good Luck,
John.

---------- Post added at 20:26 ---------- Previous post was at 20:05 ----------

So accepting incoming calls via Typetalk is failing to make provisions for disabled people and actually putting specific details on accounts regarding peoples disability when provided in writing by them is breaking the law.?

Do you honestly think any company nowadays would not have procedures in place regarding dealing with anyone with a disability as to do otherwise would leave them wide open to prosecution.

So before posting such things think twice and remember that you are not talking about a cornershop but a major company who have legal teams that ensure they adopt and have in place the correct procedures for dealing with customers disabilities.

Hi, it's you that needs to check before posting re Virgin Media and DDA non compliance. I am currently, along with the RNIB issuing proceedings against Virgin Media in respect of breaches of s19 and s21 of the DDA, the same sections which apply in the case of the originator of this thread. Unless you're sure of your ground you'd be better not to fire off at people. Your time would be much better served bringing problems such as this to Virgin Media's attention.
The fact that they're a big company, and not a corner shop is a very good reason why they have no excuse whatsoever for DDA non compliance.
John.

[Horace]

I assume the reason he's posting on the forum about it rather than contacting his solicitors is to try to get help here than go a through a lengthy court process to get his services upgraded.
Maybe Ben could help through PM?

[john coley]

As you say, Ben may be able to help. As for the general issue of compliance with leglislation Virgin Media would be well advised, when a situation such as this one is brought to their attention to first check with their legal section, instead of handing the problem over to a drip in a call centre who hasn't a clue. If they aren't sure the best thing is to check, not just to ignore it, or, as was the case with me, tell the customer that Virgin Media had no legal duty with regard to disabled customers, and that anything they did to assist them was as a matter of courtesy.
Unless they wise up very soon non compliance is going to cost Virgin Media a considerable amount of money. For your information damage band 1, as set out in the DDA in respect of a first or single breach is between £500 and £5000. Persistent or repeated breaches would attract even higher damages. The damages scale goes up to £15.000.
John.
I assume the reason he's posting on the forum about it rather than contacting his solicitors is to try to get help here than go a through a lengthy court process to get his services upgraded.
Maybe Ben could help through PM?

[whydoIneedatech]

Hi, it's you that needs to check before posting re Virgin Media and DDA non compliance. I am currently, along with the RNIB issuing proceedings against Virgin Media in respect of breaches of s19 and s21 of the DDA, the same sections which apply in the case of the originator of this thread. Unless you're sure of your ground you'd be better not to fire off at people. Your time would be much better served bringing problems such as this to Virgin Media's attention.
The fact that they're a big company, and not a corner shop that they have no excuse whatsoever for DDA non complance.
John.
I am sorry that you have been treated this way and really do hope you win your case as any form of discrimination is out of order.

I have taken calls from both Typetalk and people with the facility to have all the icons talk as I presume you have and really have no issues helping anyone, I just wish better provision was made for this.

[Milambar]

I have to admit, I too have huge difficulties contacting VM, being deaf.

My usual method of contacting them is to borrow a mobile phone, and if I get an Indian on the line (not intending to be racist), I just hang up, and redial. Repeat until I hear an English voice. I simply can't understand the Indian accents, on top of my hearing difficulties, it makes communication impossible.

Constantly having to redial till I get someone in the UK, hammers the cellphone bills with the connection charges even if it is only for less than a minute. Which is why I recently had VM install a landline. Now I can just redial 150 at no cost to myself, till I get someone in the UK on the line.

As for typetalk and textphones, well, they are wonderful machines, but out of my price range. The cheapest one is over £200.

Whydontineedatech: I offer my apologies for my hostile post too. I was a little... Irritated at something going on here (here being at home), so possibly I read hostility into your post where there wasn't any intended.

[whydoIneedatech]

I have to admit, I too have huge difficulties contacting VM, being deaf.

My usual method of contacting them is to borrow a mobile phone, and if I get an Indian on the line (not intending to be racist), I just hang up, and redial. Repeat until I hear an English voice. I simply can't understand the Indian accents, on top of my hearing difficulties, it makes communication impossible.

Constantly having to redial till I get someone in the UK, hammers the cellphone bills with the connection charges even if it is only for less than a minute. Which is why I recently had VM install a landline. Now I can just redial 150 at no cost to myself, till I get someone in the UK on the line.

As for typetalk and textphones, well, they are wonderful machines, but out of my price range. The cheapest one is over £200.

Whydontineedatech: I offer my apologies for my hostile post too. I was a little... Irritated at something going on here (here being at home), so possibly I read hostility into your post where there wasn't any intended.
Do you not get any help with the cost of Typetalk machines as that is wrong.

[Milambar]

There was once a charity in my area, called DIAL, about 4 years ago, that loaned deaf people textphones on an indefinite loan basis, till they could afford their own, but that charity has long since gone defunct.

It went defunct a week before my social worker told me about them, lol, so I was never able to benefit.

Aside from that, there is no official help, from government or social services, that I'm aware of, although, I could be wrong.

[BenMcr]

I will certainly help where I can.

As for John Coleys posts, can you be a bit clearer. Saying they breach certain aspects of the DDA isn't helpful as I have no clue what they've not done ;)

[john coley]

Hi Ben, I've pasted below passages from sections 19 and 21, which I referred to in my earlier post. Hope they're helpful.
John.

19 Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person—
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
(b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service;
(c) in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or
(d) in the terms on which he provides a service to the disabled person.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21—
(a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities;
(b) a person is “a provider of services” if he is concerned with the provision, in the United Kingdom, of services to the public or to a section of the public; and
(c) it is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment.
(3) The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply—
(a) access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter;
(b) access to and use of means of communication;
(c) access to and use of information services;
(d) accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
(e) facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance;
(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;
(g) facilities provided by employment agencies or under section 2 of the [1973 c. 50.] Employment and Training Act 1973;
(h) the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority.
(4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
(5) Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, this section and sections 20 and 21 do not apply to—
(a) education which is funded, or secured, by a relevant body or provided at—
(i) an establishment which is funded by such a body or by a Minister of the Crown; or
(ii) any other establishment which is a school as defined in section 14(5) of the [1992 c. 13.] Further and Higher Education Act 1992 or section 135(1) of the [1980 c. 44.] Education (Scotland) Act 1980;
(b) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport; or
(c) such other services as may be prescribed.
21 Duty of providers of services to make adjustments
(1) Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect.
(2) Where a physical feature (for example, one arising from the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to premises) makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of such a service, it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to—
(a) remove the feature;
(b) alter it so that it no longer has that effect;
(c) provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature; or
(d) provide a reasonable alternative method of making the service in question available to disabled persons.
(3) Regulations may prescribe—
(a) matters which are to be taken into account in determining whether any provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (d) is reasonable; and
(b) categories of providers of services to whom subsection (2) does not apply.
(4) Where an auxiliary aid or service (for example, the provision of information on audio tape or of a sign language interpreter) would—
(a) enable disabled persons to make use of a service which a provider of services provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public, or
(b) facilitate the use by disabled persons of such a service,
it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to provide that auxiliary aid or service.

[BenMcr]

Ok, but what I mean was, why do you think/know Virgin are not compliant?

[john coley]

Ok, but what I mean was, why do you think/know Virgin are not compliant?

Primarily in the manner in which Virgin communicated with him. He informed them that he was unable to use the telephone, and that email was, for reasons of his disability his preferred method. As I understand it they failed to contact him by email, instead by telephone, which he had already explained to them he was unable to use due to his disability.
John.

[BenMcr]

Ok, it wasn't the correct way of doing things, and that advisor needs their head examining as it isn't even logical.

But it isn't Virgin's official company policy to do that

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

And if I had more details I could feed it back appropriately

[john coley]

Ok, it wasn't the correct way of doing things, and that advisor needs their head examining as it isn't even logical.

But it isn't Virgin's official company policy to do that

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

And if I had more details I could feed it back appropriately

That's the point Ben. That's called being non compliant. Failure to adjust a policy or practice, as you will have seen in the text I posted is against the law. The last time I checked it was still MP's who made the laws in this country, not Virgin Media.
As to your last comment you've got the full text in my recent post.
John.

[TheDon]

Primarily in the manner in which Virgin communicated with him. He informed them that he was unable to use the telephone, and that email was, for reasons of his disability his preferred method. As I understand it they failed to contact him by email, instead by telephone, which he had already explained to them he was unable to use due to his disability.
John.

Actually they replied to his email, saying he had to put his request in writing, and once they had that then he was sure they could deal with him by email in future.

That isn't being non-compliant by any stretch of the imagination.

[john coley]

Fraser says in his original post:
"The reason i used the contact us email,is because i'm unable to use telephones all together,unless they can transmit sign language ,and i had included that fact in my email to VM,and so, asked them to contact me via my email address,which i included.


And the only contact i have had back is,wait for it,a telephone call ,on a member of family's phone that i USED TO USE as a contact,asking to speak to me,...........


This has happened before,when i had a problem with a direct debit,i used the contact us email page, explained my situation,yet had a response back asking me to speak to them on the phone"...
As I understand it Virgin insisted on in the first instance talking to him on the telephone, after which they would communicate with him via email. Fraser states clearly in his post, as you can see from the above quote that due to his hearing disability he is unable to use the telephone. The facts are clearly stated. You are alluding to the first response, which states:

"If you sent a letter explaining the situation I'm sure then this could be
done by letter or email".
Firstly this is not what happened, as you claim. It is what the poster maintains would happen. Secondly, am I missing something, or is an email not writing? As far as I am aware they are.

John.