Unreasonably Persistant Complainants

[tomsk]

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...ants_Policy.pdf

[alan_fincher]

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...ants_Policy.pdf

Yes,

 

I have complained repeatedly to BW about this very policy!..............

[NB Alnwick]

Bureaucratic nonsense!

[Guest]

I think you'll find most public sector organisations will have something similar - it is their to prevent a scenario where somebody will make the most trivial and repeated complaints thus tying up staff in the organisation (at the expense of the taxpayer) dealing with them, when their time would be much better spent doing other things.

 

The risk of course is that it gets used inappropriately to block legitimate complaints being considered, generally from my experience the threshold when it comes into force is pretty high.

[WJM]

In computer speak, it is to prevent Ping flooding!

[Guest]

In computer speak, it is to prevent Ping flooding!

 

Very nicely put....

[Naughty Cal]

In computer speak, it is to prevent Ping flooding!

 

Why would you want to flood Pingu?

[journeyperson]

Very nicely put....

 

You look much better now .

[Guest]

You look much better now .

And it didn't hurt a bit....

[Hazza]

This biggest problem is that they have actually paid soeone to come up with drivvle like this. Surely a repaired gate or similar would be far more use?

[Guest]

This biggest problem is that they have actually paid soeone to come up with drivvle like this. Surely a repaired gate or similar would be far more use?

 

The alternative is you get swamped with trivial and vexatious complaints that you have to respond to, thereby tying up numerous staff - some of whom could be out fixing gates instead.

 

 

Edit for typo

Edited November 23, 2009 by MJG

[Smelly]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. MJG's on the nose.

 

Any "public interface" role will have its share of nutters, ours included. Our management committee are currently investigating an allegation also, so we are told, reported to UNHCR that myself and my manager; in cahoots with Jobcentre Plus, are complicit in modern day slavery; I was quite pleased to be reported to the UN it'll shine on my CV.

 

Beyond that I can think of another two people off the top of my head who, when I've given them bad news, have been on the phone repeatedly until I've refused to speak to them or my manager has taken the flak until such time as she's refused to speak to them.

[tomsk]

I think you'll find most public sector organisations will have something similar - it is their to prevent a scenario where somebody will make the most trivial and repeated complaints thus tying up staff in the organisation (at the expense of the taxpayer) dealing with them, when their time would be much better spent doing other things.

 

The risk of course is that it gets used inappropriately to block legitimate complaints being considered, generally from my experience the threshold when it comes into force is pretty high.

 

I agree, these are individuals are known as 'vexatious complainants' or in legal terms 'vexatious litigants' and there are ways of dealing with these individuals once identified as such (the Mods probably have experience of the type), usually as part of the process the complainant is told that their complaints are considered vexatious. The way this piece of nonsense has been drafted though sidesteps that nomenclature and allows BW to just ignore complaints without putting them on file, or informing the complainant the reason why and could be used as a mechanism for sticking their fingers in their lugholes if they don't wish to hear a complaint...... Poor customer service if you ask me.

[mayalld]

This biggest problem is that they have actually paid soeone to come up with drivvle like this. Surely a repaired gate or similar would be far more use?

 

It is an investment for the future.

 

They paid somebody to come up with this (or to nick the wording from somewhere else), and it cost a small amount of money.

 

The first time they actually apply the policy, and decline to continue discussions with a vexatious complainant, they save that much money (and more) on corresponding with the complainant.

[churchward]

The policy seems fair enough to me.

 

I don't want my or others complaints who have a genuine reason for doing so slow slowed down or waiting in a queue because some person is complaining for the 300th time that the colour on his licence is just the wrong shade of blue.

Edited November 23, 2009 by churchward

[tomsk]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. MJG's on the nose.

 

Any "public interface" role will have its share of nutters, ours included. Our management committee are currently investigating an allegation also, so we are told, reported to UNHCR that myself and my manager; in cahoots with Jobcentre Plus, are complicit in modern day slavery; I was quite pleased to be reported to the UN it'll shine on my CV.

 

Beyond that I can think of another two people off the top of my head who, when I've given them bad news, have been on the phone repeatedly until I've refused to speak to them or my manager has taken the flak until such time as she's refused to speak to them.

 

 

Understood, however the scenario of dealing with service users who are trying to extract a benefit they are not entitled to is completely different from that of a service user who pays their dues to an organisation and expects a level of service for their dues. Their always will be 'Single Issue' nutters and these can be spotted at 40 paces and dealt with appropriately. My issue is with the wooliness of the document. It basically says that if we dont want to listen we wont, nor will we tell you that we are not listening, nor will we put your complaint/correspondance on file (this could be shooting themselves in the foot), nor will you have any recourse for review other than after 6 months from when we start ignoring you (though you may not know this date as we are ignoring you and don't have to tell you). Weapons Grade Nonsense.

[Guest]

Their always will be 'Single Issue' nutters and these can be spotted at 40 paces and dealt with appropriately.

 

But if you don't have a policy for how you do it - how do you do it (if you see what I mean)

[Smelly]

The way this piece of nonsense has been drafted though sidesteps that nomenclature and allows BW to just ignore complaints without putting them on file, or informing the complainant the reason why and could be used as a mechanism for sticking their fingers in their lugholes if they don't wish to hear a complaint...... Poor customer service if you ask me.

 

It doesn't seem to say that though. A complainant has already become such, and so presumably has been logged as such, and it is only once, having become a complainant, he becomes vexatious that measures may be taken.

[Naughty Cal]

Understood, however the scenario of dealing with service users who are trying to extract a benefit they are not entitled to is completely different from that of a service user who pays their dues to an organisation and expects a level of service for their dues. Their always will be 'Single Issue' nutters and these can be spotted at 40 paces and dealt with appropriately. My issue is with the wooliness of the document. It basically says that if we dont want to listen we wont, nor will we tell you that we are not listening, nor will we put your complaint/correspondance on file (this could be shooting themselves in the foot), nor will you have any recourse for review other than after 6 months from when we start ignoring you (though you may not know this date as we are ignoring you and don't have to tell you). Weapons Grade Nonsense.

 

To give you your own advice, go to EA managed waters and forget the BW policies

[tomsk]

It doesn't seem to say that though. A complainant has already become such, and so presumably has been logged as such, and it is only once, having become a complainant, he becomes vexatious that measures may be taken.

 

 

But at no point will he/her be informed that their complaint is considered 'vexatious', the terminology is studiously avoided.

 

To give you your own advice, go to EA managed waters and forget the BW policies

 

 

Super advice Fil, but kind of lets BW off the hook.

 

I'm becoming more and more convinced that BW would love all the PITA boaters to fornicate off. It's reminds me of the old Housing Management maxim, 'This would be an easy job if it wasn't for the Tenants', forgetting that without the Tenants (or boaters in this case) they wouldn't have a job.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Understood, however the scenario of dealing with service users who are trying to extract a benefit they are not entitled to is completely different from that of a service user who pays their dues to an organisation and expects a level of service for their dues. Their always will be 'Single Issue' nutters and these can be spotted at 40 paces and dealt with appropriately. My issue is with the wooliness of the document. It basically says that if we dont want to listen we wont, nor will we tell you that we are not listening, nor will we put your complaint/correspondance on file (this could be shooting themselves in the foot), nor will you have any recourse for review other than after 6 months from when we start ignoring you (though you may not know this date as we are ignoring you and don't have to tell you). Weapons Grade Nonsense.

 

BW has attempted in the past to threaten some people with this policy. However, it has been pointed out to them that if they attempt to invoke it then it only means a complainant can legitimately take a complaint to the Waterways Ombudsman on the grounds that BW has not followed its own internal complaints procedure. Whilst, I see need for the policy, I suspect that the involvement of the WO is needed to make the process fair.

[Pingu]

Why would you want to flood Pingu?

I don't want to be flooded! I like being frozen.

[fuzzyduck]

Hey, no fair. A "bugger off you're annoying us now" letter would be great, how do we go about getting one if they won't tell us when we've reached such hallowed status?

 

It's gonna be a bit like vociferous ex scientologists not getting their golden rod.

[Lewis 53]

So if I complain I,m just going to be ignored if they dont like my complaint but I,ll not know till later as it will be a secret that only BW will know about. Please excuise me I,m just going to lie down with a lightly boiled asprin.

 

Lewis.

[Guest]

So if I complain I,m just going to be ignored if they dont like my complaint but I,ll not know till later as it will be a secret that only BW will know about. Please excuise me I,m just going to lie down with a lightly boiled asprin.

 

Lewis.

 

Yes of course that's right