1st October 2014
What happened to Howard
What has happened to that well trusted and respected ‘we give you extra’ brand Halifax?
I am not sure if you or your clients have any recent experiences of paying in money to open up a 1 year fixed rate cash ISA? If their experience was anything like mine I suspect that in future the Halifax’s breathtakingly arrogant way of dealing with its customers will see a considerable reduction in new business.
The process to check if account details to pay monies into a Halifax account are correct goes something like this:
- Dial a number from the website, the call is auto answered.
- Then a message about caring about the customer experience is played and you are asked if you would like to provide feedback after the call, I so dislike that!
- Wait for 10.41 minutes to get the call answered, this would not help in any post call feedback of ideas
- The call is eventually answered by a female with a Liverpool accent so strong it was almost unintelligible
- Security questions asked
- Security passed
- Account details checked and confirmed all OK- time taken now 14.38 minutes
- The call centre assistant was then asked to check my wife’s account details were correct.
- The response was that this was not possible because the computer screen only allowed one request to be actioned.
- My frustration was expressed but the brick wall had been hit. Time taken so far 18.23 minutes
- I asked to speak with a manager ; a sometimes dangerous move as I have a sense that any such requests often mean you being placed in telecoms oblivion, never to speak with anyone again until you redial and go through the whole painful process again.
At that point I was put on hold and after call duration of 20.53 minutes I spoke to ‘Dave’ (surname not given as it is not Halifax policy to do so). I asked him if he would agree that the time taken and the fact that two individual queries cannot be dealt with in a single call was an acceptable way to treat customers looking to deposit money into cash ISA accounts.
‘Dave’ had no view on the subject but did set about providing a view to a question that had not been asked. After three more attempts on my part to get an answer I realised that another brick wall in Liverpool had been hit. ‘Dave’ has no ability to think outside the script and as a result was unable or unwilling to commit to a view on the problems outlined. The call duration was now 24.49 minutes.
‘Dave’ very kindly offered to launch me back into the system to allow my wife’s account details to be confirmed. I graciously accepted and after call duration of 32.07 minutes a call centre assistant who could actually speak in an intelligible way took the call.
My wife was ID’d, questions asked, answered and fond farewells were said after 36.23 minutes.
I normally have some sympathy toward the problems that financial institutions have in dealing with calls but this Halifax example of caring, sharing beggars belief and should be seen as a masterclass in how to really upset your customers without even trying.
Halifax customer service, if my experience is a bellweather, is simply ‘shite’.
The ‘people who give you extra’ do not quantify what that extra is.
I can assist them in that department if they cared to listen, but as with all organisations that go big on brand image creating a real style over substance offering, they do not want to hear, they are incapable of a corporate listen. They talk the talk but fall over after the first steps of the walk.
Get grip Halifax, nobody should have to put up with this type of treatment.
Howard Brown left the Halifax in 2011, after bosses decided he was ‘too jolly’.
Well nobody is laughing now.
Comments (6)
Alistair Seccombe 03/10/2014 09:52
Since January of this year I have experienced terrible problems with Scottish Widows, where you have to wait up to 35 minutes for their 'dedicated' Client Contact Number to be answered, let alone the time it then takes to discuss your query.
Scottish Widows accept it is a problem because they have recently taken on more staff for training - 9 months after the problems started.
Eventually, when you do get to speak to a human being, if your query is outside of their script, they offer to pass you onto another colleague, which means you then have to go through all the security checks again. Maybe these providers have got additional business interests at UK Airports as the security checks are equally in depth.
If unfortunately, you make a comment regarding the amount of time taken to get through on behalf of the client 'that you introduced to Scottish Widows' [they forget that bit] you are then encouraged to make a Formal Complaint, which gets them off the hook for a couple of weeks whilst they pass that around the various departments involved.
These problems have increased since the introduction of RDR as most providers cut back on staff, which means they are now operating under-manned with less experienced staff, resulting in the problems experienced.
An example of this situation:-
I rang regarding information for a planned Annual Drawdown Review for an existing client. Having passed the initial 'stress test' of the 35 minute wait for the call to be answered, I was then vetted by Scottish Widows version of Homeland Security, and having passed the criteria was then allowed to ask for the information I required.
The call went as follows.
A = Adviser
SWD = Scottish Widows Drone
A: Could you confirm the "Crystallisation Date' on the plan please?
SWD: No answer
A: Sorry, could you provide us with the Crystallisation date please?
SWD: Sorry, what does that mean
So, an explanation of what Crystallisation Date means. Onto the next question.
A: Could you confirm the amount of PCLS taken on crystallisation
SWD: No answer - but I could hear wind whistling through the expansive office in the background. At least I think it was the office, it might have been whistling between their ears !
SWD: Sorry, don't know what that is, but the client took x amount of Tax Free Cash on x date !!!!
A: Thanks, that's the same thing.
A: The client is currently taking a gross annual income from the plan of x. Could you please confirm the GAD Rate applied at outset.
SWD: What's GAD ?
A: Sorry?
SWD: I don't know what GAD is ?
A: So, your working on the Retirement Income Team and you don't know what GAD is ?
SWD: No
Eventually, I did manage to get all the information required, but here's the important bit.
I asked to speak to a Manager or Supervisor, but they were ALL in a meeting. I persisted and was eventually put through to one of their 'supervisors' who are specifically employed because they only have a first name [a bit like Prince - the musician}.
Anyway, I discussed the issue and told SWIDs they would get no further business from me as I do not believe they are 'Treating Customers Fairly' - remember that one from the FSA !
I also told them I would pull all existing business and place it elsewhere based on their atrocious service.
The only way these providers are going to take notice is if we, as an adviser community, hit them where it hurts the most and that is the 'profit line'.
NB: Scottish Widows still plaster their paperwork with logos regarding past 4 Star Awards for service ????????
Derek Jones 03/10/2014 10:01
I for one would not be able to offer a personal service for the small amounts involved in a single one off transaction without charging a much higher fee.
If you want a bespoke personal service you need to stick a few more noughts to the left side of the decimal point and/or be prepared to pay a retainer fee.
There are plenty of institutions offering this service should you wish to take advantage of it.
We as a profession regard ourselves worthy of our fee for our personal service so why should we expect anything less from any other branch of the F.S. industry.
Stuart R 03/10/2014 10:35
1 supervisors, managers are ALWAYS in a meeting
2 if they don't like the question, answer a question which hasn't been asked
3 gloss over or ignore any criticism which they don't like, even if it's constructive.
I have an ongoing issue with IRESS concerning their Trigold product. They steadfastly refuse to accept that they didn't send correspondence, yet they aren't able to produce a copy of what they claim was issued. They also claim that a pop up in their software is a sufficient and adequate way of informing customers of a price increase.
I've noticed that mistakes on our BT and EE 'phone bills are invariably in their favour.
It's becoming more and more difficult to jump ship when so many "service" providers think that crap service is adequate.
Richard Brown 03/10/2014 11:39
After writing and no reply after a consiuderable time, I put them on notice of a formal complaint. They ignored it, so I went to the Ombudsman.
How did they win an award for IFA pension provider of the year? Whilst the competition isn't good, Snottish Windows' lack of acceptable service is truly appaling.
Richard Brown 03/10/2014 11:45
My response:
"The Financial Conduct Authority's glossary defines 'any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or not, from, or on behalf of, a person about the provision of, or failure to provide, a financial service or a redress determination, which:
(a) alleges that the complainant has suffered (or may suffer) financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience; and
(b) relates to an activity of that respondent, or of any other respondent with whom that respondent has some connection in marketing or providing financial services or products, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service.' as a Complaint.
Rule DISP 1.6.2R gives a firm 8 weeks to issue a final response to a complaint. Your time has already started".
Peter Turner 03/10/2014 14:57
You need to be logged in to comment on this article