Maltacom`s new service - phonemail

I feel I should bring to your attention the way Maltacom`s "answering service" is being imposed on us, something which I am really furious about right now. I was trying to contact a friend of mine and was repeatedly being informed, presumably by a Maltacom recorded message, that the number I am dialling is `engaged` - as if the engaged tone previously used was not obvious enough.

I dialled 190 to enquire whether I was being charged for these unsuccessful calls. I was advised to call 0800-774141 and to put my question to them. I did and I was advised that one had to put down the phone within five seconds from hearing the recorded message to avoid being charged for the call. What about all those consumers who are not aware of this procedure?

I further enquired as to whether I could de-activate this service. I was told that I may deactivate such service but that would not exempt me from paying for such calls. Only those phoning me will save on calls! What about the ever-increasing use of the Internet - the failed connection? Are we going to be charged repeatedly for these?

I strongly believe that a public awareness should be created. In this way, consumers should be encouraged to deactivate such `answering service` with the result that we will not be robbed of our hard-earned cash. Maltacom should indeed be ashamed of their action, more so when the consumer is being presented with daily notices in newspapers advertising FREE answering service. If Maltacom want to increase their tariffs, they should say so and not try to hide behind a smokescreen. I ask you to consider publishing an article in your weekly column of The Sunday Times about this daylight robbery! (Sylvana Zarb Darmanin)

To be fair Maltacom has been and still is actively working on generating public awareness regarding its products and services. I asked for Maltacom`s comments:

We are concerned about Ms Zarb Darmanin`s perception of Maltacom`s newest service - PhoneMail. On the contrary Maltacom is a future-looking, commercial company committed to introduce modern systems, services and products based on advanced telecom technology. Our ongoing strategies target the consumer`s interests and aim at offering our customers a wide range of benefits and advantages to enhance their telephone service. Our attitudes are customer-focused and client satisfaction is our ultimate goal.

I would like to stress the point that Maltacom took prompt remedial action further to customer feedback and extended the time frame from five to ten seconds. As a result, callers who get diverted to PhoneMail have a good 10 seconds to hang up without getting billed.

In the coming days we will be inserting a voice recording (in Maltese and in English) within the 10-second time frame notifying customers as follows: "Terminate this call now if you do not wish to leave a message in PhoneMail and incur charges."

It is unfair of Ms Zarb Darmanin to blame Maltacom for her Internet connectivity problems. I suggest she take up the issue with her Internet Service Provider (ISP).

We pride ourselves in the fact that Maltacom offers excellent support services to the majority of local ISPs through its subsidiary companies - Datastream and Maltanet.

We assure you that the company has no hidden agenda vis-à-vis the service. Maltacom introduced PhoneMail on the local market specifically to give customers the opportunity of receiving and listening to their messages for free and then choosing whether or not to return the call. In the case of callers, they can opt not to leave a message and so avoid incurring costs. It is a case of total control over the system and any charges. (Grace Pace, PR executive)

Shops with a `money back` policy

After having bought a product or a service, consumers, for various reasons - ranging from faulty products to dissatisfaction - often ask for a refund. However, once they get hold of your hard-earned cash, local suppliers, with the exception of two so far, tend to hang on to it no matter what. Moreover in situations when the consumer is well and truly justified in expecting a refund, at best, some suppliers may offer a credit note sometimes with an expiry date.

When it comes to dealing with such situations there is a significant difference in policy between local suppliers and suppliers in Europe or the United States. However, we have a list of local suppliers who do have a `money back` policy. We must encourage such outlets by giving them our custom. Moreover, just like consumers in many other countries, we must make our expectations very clear on this issue.

Two outlets have a `money back` policy subject to specific conditions. They are:

Borg Barthet Home & Hardware of Guardamangia, tel: 2125-1666 under the following conditions:

1. The goods have to be returned within a week from date of purchase with the fiscal receipt.

2. The goods have to be in their original packaging and in a saleable condition. Care has to be observed when removing the product from its packaging. No part of the packaging should be torn or discarded. Care has to be taken to open blister packs and, if in doubt, ask the salesperson at the time of purchase.

3. This policy does not apply to special orders of specific items which have been imported for the customer, and paint mixed to a specific shade as requested by the customer.

E. Maistre Stationers & Rubber Stamp Manufacturers 162, Melita Street, Valletta, tel: 2122-4888, 2123-1621, as long as the fiscal receipt is returned, and the goods are in a saleable condition.

In the meantime, if any other suppliers who adopt a money-back policy wish to be included in the above list, they are invited to write to me. We will continue compiling our list aimed at sharing information with consumers.

No money back, no deposit back policy

To Camilleri & Camilleri - Discovery Bookshop:

We are writing to ask for a refund of Lm39, being the deposit paid to your company in relation to books ordered.

On October 5 we ordered ten Sidney Sheldon books from your company that we required for an assignment. We paid a deposit from our Students Maintenance Grant Card, after you gave us your word that the books would be on hand within a week.

Contrary to what you had promised, no books arrived by the end of the week and the following month we kept coming to your bookshop hoping that you would make good your promise and give us the books we had ordered. With our assignment swiftly approaching, finally we had no option but to inform you that we could not wait any longer and that we were going to purchase the books from some other outlet.

At this point we also asked for our money to be refunded since: the onus of delivering the books lies on your company; as customers we could in no way influence the delivery date of the books; we needed the books urgently for our assignments; we placed our order with your company and paid a deposit subject to the books being delivered within a week, as you had promised.

Notwithstanding our request, you told us that it was your company`s policy not to give out refunds, but only a credit note, which would be posted to us later on. This credit note was received on December 6, one month after we had claimed a refund.

To add insult to injury, it has now come to our knowledge that, contrary to what you said was your company`s policy, some students, who encountered the same problem with your company, have had their money refunded. Since this is discriminatory treatment, we are now insisting that our money be refunded in full on the following grounds:

Your company`s policy is not consistent in its treatment of the customers. We demand to be treated in the same way as your other customers who were refunded with their deposit instead of being given a credit note. While reserving the right to take any legal action which we deem necessary, unless a favourable reply is received within ten days from the date of this letter, we would also like to inform you that copies of this letter will be forwarded to Mr Adrian Muscat Inglott of the Sunday Times Customer Service Column and to the KSU. (Lorna Borg and Joanna Borg)

Suppliers` policies regarding "retention of cash, no matter what" is an issue very close to my heart, hence today`s publication of our list (only two) of suppliers who do not hang on to your money no matter what. On February 26 I asked for Discovery Bookshop`s comments but my letter was returned. On March 19 I sent them a reminder. On March 24 I asked for their comments via our column and we have now received their comments:

Re Complaint by Lorna and Joanna Borg:

I have to admit that, while sympathising with these two students in their first days at University with all the new stresses and strains that it entails, I fail to understand why they had to drag your column into this. I have closely followed your column since inception and it never lends itself to lies and deception.

I personally collected your request for comment dated February 26, together with a reminder dated March 19, both of which were together in the same envelope, on March 26 from our Post Office. At that time, we were on shutdown for Easter and only returned to the office on April 2, whereupon we immediately contacted you to explain our lack of response. Previous to this when, as I am now told, you appear to have requested comment in your Sunday column, we were away from the island.

The fact of the matter is that these two students had between them ordered some ten different paperback fiction titles by Sidney Sheldon, ostensibly for study purposes, paid an agreed deposit, and then refused to honour the order because they had bought them from somewhere else.

Although I would have been perfectly within my rights to withhold their deposit, I sympathised with them and offered a credit note for an equivalent amount instead, which credit note they both accepted. Months later, they returned to demand their money back. In the meantime the books are still on my shelves.

As far as Discovery is concerned, no promises were made and none were broken. We feel very offended by the two students` baseless assertions and the arrogant and threatening tone of their letter, which explains why we chose not to reply. What a nice way of paying back my sympathetic gesture!

In spite of this, my wife and I would be more than willing to co-operate with you should you feel that the matter requires further clarification and would kindly invite you to telephone and fix a meeting at Discovery for this purpose. (John Camilleri)

From a customer service point of view Discovery evidently failed on two very important aspects. As confirmed by Mr Camilleri`s letter, they did not identify their customers but, more importantly, they did not identify their customers` needs. These are the foundations on which excellent service is built.

First of all Mr Camilleri`s patronising opening statement was uncalled for. Lorna and Joanna Borg are definitely not "in their first days at University with all the new stresses and strains that it entails" and they are not seeking sympathy but, rather, what is rightfully theirs. They have already graduated, having obtained a B.Commerce degree and they are now furthering their studies in B.Accy. (Hons).

The most important aspect of their needs in this specific case was "delivery within a week" due to a very important assignment which they had to submit within three weeks. Unfortunately, too often, deadlines are not given the importance they deserve as Mr Camilleri confirmed by the mere fact that he made no reference whatsoever to this crucial point.

Moreover, to add insult to injury, despite the fact that he did not deliver within the stipulated deadline, which was a key factor, Mr Camilleri wrongly assumes that he would have been perfectly within his rights to withhold the students` Lm39 deposit.

However, after the students persisted for a whole month he supposedly "sympathised with them" and "offered a credit note" rather than what is rightfully theirs - cash. I find this highly disturbing and I exper-ience extreme difficulty coming to terms with the way he dismissed the students` perfectly justifiable letter as having "an arrogant and threatening tone". At the same time he claims to have been "sympathetic".

Quite frankly I do not see anything sympathetic about the way he handled this case so far. However all is not lost. Discovery can still redeem themselves.

So far, apart from having received both sides of the case in writing, I also spoke with both parties and I do not think there is the need for any "further clarification". At this stage, in an attempt to positively conclude this case, I appeal to Mr Camilleri to resolve the matter with Lorna and Joanna Borg.

While bearing in mind that they paid the deposit by using their Students Maintenance Grant Card, I do not know whether Mr Camilleri has already processed the transaction and obtained the money. In any case I ask him to sort the matter out with his customers by giving them back the money which is rightfully theirs.

In the meantime I look forward to being in a position to inform our readers that this case has been positively resolved. In this spirit I thank Mr Camilleri and his wife in anticipation for the co-operation they promised to give.