Movieconnect charging for lost DVDs.

[intalex]

Robo, you're one funny man.

So are you saying that you work for one of the larger online DVD rental companies?

If that's the case, then I'm sure all the larger ones have been slated one place or another in these forums which would make it surprising that you make your grand entrance into these forums just to defend a "smaller" business rather than your employers. Come on dude, you are from Movieconnect. Can't believe someone from the larger ones would ascertain your arguments (or lack of).

A free trial never disappoints anyone but the business itself. By offering a free trial, you are letting people use your service for free without any guarantee that they will become a paying member afterwards. When the free-trialler opts not to stay on as a paying member, the business is naturally disappointed. Now if they get bitter about it and try to take it out on the free-triallers using "certain" tactics, isn't it better that they didn't offer the free trial in the first place?

The whole "posting of DVDs and receiving them back" system is a bit of a grey area. A customer can obtain a "proof of posting" each time they send a DVD back, but how on earth do they prove that they never received a DVD in the first place? It is for this reason that businesses give the customer the benefit of the doubt when DVDs sent to customers get lost in transit.

If it happens too often, then there is cause for suspicion, but for the first ever lost DVD, how can you possibly speculate that the customer may have stolen it, especially seeing that the same customer has already received and returned 5 other DVDs?

I think there have been numerous valid points made in here, not using legal terms, but using simple English and based on common sense. It's a shame you haven't contributed to any of these.

All you say is "I disagree, you are all wrong, I am right because I know it". How can you even use the term credible in here? Let's face it, you will struggle to attain the support of even other online DVD rental staff, let alone customers.

[surfprof]

It seems to me that, reading through this thread, the original point has been lost somewhat.

What's the problem with Intalex stating his experiences and how he feels about it. If his experience is true, would'nt anyone feel the same? Regardless of other's opinions this is downright shoddy and self-serving service from Movieconnect and is precisely the sort of service that has been documented about other firms since this board started. Isn't that the point of the board?

Equally, I think Robo has been treated a little unfairly. So what, if he has only just started posting. So have I, though i've visited the board since it first started. That doesn't automatically make him or me an employee of Movieconnect, Blockbuster, Lovefilm or anyone else, defensive opinion or not. He's right, length of membership is'nt the criteria for valid participation and discussion. Or do members want to prevent the voicing of alternative opinions the same as the rental companies do when you challenge them?

Even if he was an employee, why shouldn't he present an alternative opinion, or offer advice based upon a different perspective. Again, wouldn't we all do the same if we were personally connected?

Someone even said that it would be sad if the rental firms stooped so low as to post comments and defend themselves on this board. Why? Personally I would encourage them to communicate this way. It's better than countless e-mails or phone calls that don't get a response at all. (Christ, I could publish the equivalent of a set of encyclopedias with my e-mails to Lovefilm.)

I think we should return to Intalex's original point. His experience with this company is valid and deserves to be communicated with others whether they agree with him or not. It doesn't need legal jargon or supportive legislation and case law to make it valid. This is what the companies fall back upon: Terms & Conditions / Contracts, etc. Customer service is about what the customer experiences and if he/ she feels aggrieved, why shouldn't they complain?

In addition, to reply to this by implying that contributors to this board might keep discs and deny receiving them is to uphold the very argument that Intalex and others presented. Don't accuse others of this without the evidence. There might be trading on Ebay, that doesn't excuse the companies, or Robo, me or anyone else accusing, or assuming that the customer has kept the discs. The responsibility for secure service is the company's, and they can go missing anywhere in the chain.

An early piece of advice to Intalex was to be careful about slandering Movieconnect in his posts. It seems to me that the person who gave this advice has forgotten to apply this advice himself. Don't rush to make quick, confrontational posts that imply that people aren't "providing the whole story" just because they express themselves emotionally.

If it were me, my patience would have run short a long time ago and I'd be hopping mad, threatening legal action, bad-mouthing them in public and ultimately, getting the shotgun out. I'm pretty sure that if Robo, and anyone else were honest, they'd be reacting in exactly the same way, whether it was DVD rental, faulty goods, electricity bills, lost luggage, whatever. Bad service is bad service and is guaranteed to elicit an emptional and subjective response.

OK. Soapbox away now. Let us know what happens Intalex.

Cheers all.

Happy New Year.

[intalex]

Oops, I completely forgot to update everyone on the last development on the situation:

I was on the verge of filing a claim to the small claims court (got all the forms filled and their responses to my emails printed out) when Movieconnect came back to me with an update on 20th December.

They said they talked to the Royal Mail about all their outstanding claims, and they were told that the specific batch which included the DVD lost on its way to me was being processed by one of their reps and that they were expecting the claim to be resolved within 1-2 weeks from then.

Feeling generous and taking into account the Xmas and New Year Holidays, I replied back saying I will give them 3 weeks to refund my money after which I will not wait a single day more to file my claim to the small claims court. The 1-2 weeks they quoted are already up and no sign of a refund from them, but I'll still wait the 3 weeks I promised to wait before taking further action.

I did this because I thought that giving them another chance to put things right would only strengthen my case should they fail yet again. So the 3 weeks will be up on 10th January and if I don't see my refund in my account by then, I will just print off a copy of their last response to add to the rest of their responses, and file my complaint to the small claims court.

Surfprof, I have to agree that it's a good thing to have online DVD rental company staff come in here and defend themselves freely, but thay have to do so using valid points that make sense. Not just come in here making bold statements with no supportive arguments.

We probably brushed off Robo because he came in here criticising everyone's opinions and could not even back his own opinions with any arguments that made sense. I mean it wasn't like he was defending Movieconnect, it was more like he was attacking all of us who disapproved Movieconnect's actions. He firmly believes that Movieconnect are totally right in doing what they are doing, but can't present any supportive reasons.

I still do think that Robo is part of Movieconnect, although as you said, that should not make much difference. At the end of the day, whether or not he works for Movieconnect, nobody is going to take him seriously unless he backs his bold statements with valid points that make sense. Then again, it is difficult to think up any points to defend Movieconnect's attitude and level of service in this instance.

I'll be back with an update on 11th January.

[surfprof]

[intalex]

I'm not too hopeful either, but I can only wait and see what happens by the 10th.

If they refund me, it'll be all settled, but if they don't, then they'll probably have to refund me a little later and cover the court claim costs.

Either way, I'll let everyone in here know.

[robo]

Yet again, the people making accusations cannot draw a line under what the company has done illegally or unethically, which is the whole basis for Intallex's and friend's so called "arguement".

Intallex, would you mind answering this or are you going to avoid it again and continue the campaign of dis-creditation?

Thank you for biting on my Ebay comment!!! I have copied your thinking....cobbled together a couple things I've heard other people saying, add a dash of suspicion, a bit more ignorance and come up with possibly a false conclusion. Easy isn't it?

Please read what I have written please, don't interpret what you think I have said i.e. I have worked for large organisations. What this gives me is the experience to know that companies have to have processes to manage risk and engage with suppliers and third parties i.e. when a disc maybe lost. Do you think the Royal Mail accepts claims / compliants without supporting evidence? Logically, this means Lovefilm, Blockbuster, Movieconnect, Screenselect get sign-off when they post discs with the Royal Mail, this means they will have the evidence to show that they posted it. Have neither of you thought about this? If you turnaround and say that the length of time it has taken to get a resolution means there is no evidence, this would be another example of flawed thinking.

Surfpro, agree with you that the point of boards are for people to express themselves and that the chain should focus on what it was originally started for (Intallex can you please provide a basis in law for what the company has done illegally and / or unethically. Don't give us your opinion again. If your going to lodge a court claim surely you will have this to hand?).

I accept that everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't think the forums (and the internet) should be used by people to proporgate their ignorance without having checks and balances in place.

It is probable that companies don't contribute because there is very little value in it or credible issues worth solving. I mean, please explain what contributing would acheive?

[robo]

Yet again, the people making accusations cannot draw a line under what the company has done illegally or unethically, which is the whole basis for Intallex's and friend's so called "arguement".

Intallex, would you mind answering this or are you going to avoid it again and continue the campaign of dis-creditation?

Thank you for biting on my Ebay comment!!! I have copied your thinking....cobbled together a couple things I've heard other people saying, add a dash of suspicion, a bit more ignorance and come up with possibly a false conclusion. Easy isn't it?

Please read what I have written please, don't interpret what you think I have said i.e. I have worked for large organisations. What this gives me is the experience to know that companies have to have processes to manage risk and engage with suppliers and third parties i.e. when a disc maybe lost. Do you think the Royal Mail accepts claims / compliants without supporting evidence? Logically, this means Lovefilm, Blockbuster, Movieconnect, Screenselect get sign-off when they post discs with the Royal Mail, this means they will have the evidence to show that they posted it. Have neither of you thought about this? If you turnaround and say that the length of time it has taken to get a resolution means there is no evidence, this would be another example of flawed thinking.

Surfpro, agree with you that the point of boards are for people to express themselves and that the chain should focus on what it was originally started for (Intallex can you please provide a basis in law for what the company has done illegally and / or unethically. Don't give us your opinion again. If your going to lodge a court claim surely you will have this to hand?).

I accept that everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't think the forums (and the internet) should be used by people to proporgate their ignorance without having checks and balances in place.

It is probable that companies don't contribute because there is very little value in it or credible issues worth solving. I mean, please explain what contributing would acheive?

[intalex]

Without using any legal terms, here's the whole point of this post:

They took my money speculatively, i.e. without being sure that I owed it to them !!! (Agreed or not?)
They gave me a timescale by when they will refund me, but failed to do so over a period equalling more than twice their promised timescale !!! (Agreed or not?)
They have now given me another timescale and I am just waiting to see if they fulfil their promise this time around. If they don't it will just be another false promise !!! (Agreed or not?)

Now you can translate that using any legal jargon you wish, but the bottomline will mean the same thing, i.e. they've still got my money despite promising to refund it a long time ago. Of course all this is proven using their own responses to my emails.

So tell me Robo, how could you possibly defend Movieconnect on the basis of this argument?

[intalex]

[surfprof]

Robo, why are you so obsessed with the need to provide a legal basis for what Intalex is saying?

He believes he has received bad service, that Movieconnect have failed to provide what was promised and he believes he can evidence it with e-mails, etc.

Why does he have to provide you with relevant precedence or case law before you can empathise with his position? He does not have to do this before going to the small claims court. The judge in court will decide if there is any legal argument for his claim and whether Movieconnect have failed to meet their contract or promises.

[intalex]

Update: Same ol' story, different day !!! Here's their response to my request for an update earlier today.

Unfortunately we have nothing to add from our last correspondence - we are still awaiting a response from the Royal Mail.

Oh well, the latest responses have now been printed out, everything's been put together, and I shall go file my claim tommorrow morning.

By the way, it is now more than 4 months since the lost DVD was "apparently" sent out to me. I'm sure Robo finds it all completely acceptable.

[robo]

Couple of things:

The fundamental problem Intallex has now, is that he's made some hairy conclusions based on events that have yet (if ever) be proved to be true. Damaging reputation to get what you want is a dangerous game. Ignorance or coersion? Which one?

The fact is, he hasn't got anything to put up. Print outs, save the trees please! And why are we going back to this "unethical" thing? Please provide a definition of unethical and apply it to this situation?

From what I've been able to gather is that if the disc is sent, signed for by the Royal Mail (to verify its posting and in their possession), and then the Royal Mail says they delivered it, who else is left? Please tell me? Like I said, is there the slightest possibility that their process is water-tight...

I still think Intallex is promoting his version of events. What did they say, word for word, when they "promised" you to find out?

[intalex]

What hairy conclusions are you talking about?

Making me wait for over 4 months (so far) to refund my money is a fact, not a conclusion.

The Royal Mail haven't confirmed that they delivered it. I really don't see how they could do that anyway. Research tells me that they send the recepient some kind of form to fill in and sign to confirm that the recepient never received the disc, and only then do they compensate the sender. I haven't received any such forms in these 4 months that I have waited.

I believe the court will try to establish the following:

(i) Whether they have any proof of posting for the lost disc.

(ii) Whether they did lodge a Royal Mail claim back in September, which they claim to have done in one of their emails sent to me.

(iii) Whether the Royal Mail are still sitting on this claim and are indeed the real cause for the delays, as claimed in all their recent responses.

Then the court will probably look into the following actions and establish whether or not these are legal/ethical/acceptable actions:

(i) Charging a customer purely speculatively without being sure that the customer owes them anything.

(ii) Making the customer wait indefinitely without providing any proper timescales for a resolution. I mean, if the Royal Mail take 2 years to resolve the claim, is the customer supposed to sit helplessly and wait that long? Aren't the company obliged to provide a realistic timescale and ensure that they stick to it?

Personally, I think the correct procedure would have been to wait for the Royal Mail claim verdict before charging the customer in the first place.

Anyways, the paperwork for the claim has already been sent by post, so let's see what happens. I just don't see how the court will favour them, but we'll all find out very soon won't we?

[intalex]

One question people:

I only just posted my paperwork this afternoon, so they won't be delivered or processed until some time on Monday.

Now if Movieconnect suddenly refund me back before my claim gets looked at on Monday, will I have lost the £27 I have paid for filing the claim? Or will the court then recover the £27 from them before closing the case? Basically, what I'm asking is who will the court hold accountable for its fees if I do end up getting refunded before the start of proceedings.

[intalex]

Robo, please yourself: