Virgin marketing up to their usual tricks

[MKB]

Last week, Virgin sent me a personalised email offer for £10 off my next purchase of over £35 on Advance tickets which I duly used and was grateful for.

Today, they've repeated the offer and sent me another £10 off email, which is quite handy as I have another journey to book. However this one won't work. I suspect they've sent me an identical code to the one they sent me last week. I get: "The promotional PIN is only valid for a limited number of journeys. Please check your shopping basket and ensure you do not have more journeys than allowed."

The t&c's state: "25. Full Advance ticket terms and conditions are available at www.virgintrains.com or by calling 08457 222 333." which turns out to be another deception. That number is a recorded message telling me to call a premium rate 0871 number. One for the ASA I think.

 

[RJ]

The t&c's state: "25. Full Advance ticket terms and conditions are available at www.virgintrains.com or by calling 08457 222 333." which turns out to be another deception. That number is a recorded message telling me to call a premium rate 0871 number. One for the ASA I think.

Hove you contacted Virgin to let them know of the error, or is direct reporting to the ASA considered a popular pasttime these days?

 

[MKB]

Ok - I'm going to back-track on the criticism. I called Virgin a second time, this time using the 0121 number I've just found on saynoto0870.com and got a charming agent who agreed there had been a cock-up and said he'd send me a £10 voucher.

So big thumbs-up to Virgin for their service recovery here.

 

[telstarbox]

90% of the time it's cock-up not conspiracy.

 

[mallard]

Hove you contacted Virgin to let them know of the error, or is direct reporting to the ASA considered a popular pasttime these days?

So companies should be allowed to break the rules until a member of the public calls them out on it with no consequences?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So companies should be allowed to break the rules until a member of the public calls them out on it with no consequences?

However, a company should be given a fair chance to sort it out.

Your logic could work both ways - TOCs could stop giving passengers chances to get valid tickets, and just take them to court each and every time?

 

[mallard]

However, a company should be given a fair chance to sort it out.

Your logic could work both ways - TOCs could stop giving passengers chances to get valid tickets, and just take them to court each and every time?

Well, by the extreme of your logic a pickpocket shouldn't be prosecuted (or even reported to the police) if, when first caught, he promises never to do it again.

I don't think taking either point-of-view to the extreme is very helpful, but I do believe that businesses should be held to a higher standard than the average member of the public, particularly when such businesses receive taxpayers money.

 

[yorkie]

However, a company should be given a fair chance to sort it out.

Some TOCs will be very harsh on customers who do not "sort out" their ticketing at the first opportunity. However it appears that some people think that TOCs should not be able to sort things out at the first opportunity and be given multiple opportunities. I find this bizarre bias to be quite curious, but by now it's become tedious.

Your logic could work both ways - TOCs could stop giving passengers chances to get valid tickets, and just take them to court each and every time?

Has anyone suggested taking Virgin to court? If not, where does this come from?

Perhaps you can clarify the procedure you believe customers should carry out in terms of who they contact, and how many times?

If a TOC does not give a satisfactory answer, then ASA and Passenger Focus are suitable outlets. No-one is suggesting taking TOCs to court in this thread.

 

[RJ]

Well, by the extreme of your logic a pickpocket shouldn't be prosecuted (or even reported to the police) if, when first caught, he promises never to do it again.

I don't think taking either point-of-view to the extreme is very helpful, but I do believe that businesses should be held to a higher standard than the average member of the public, particularly when such businesses receive taxpayers money.

You're comparing a deliberate criminal offence with what's most likely a technical oversight. I'd far rather give a company a fair chance to sort things out. If fobbed off, by all means do what you have to to get listened to.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If a TOC does not give a satisfactory answer, then ASA and Passenger Focus are suitable outlets. No-one is suggesting taking TOCs to court in this thread.

No, but they were advocating reporting Virgin straight to the ASA without even giving them a chance to sort it out. Which is just like taking a passenger straight to court without giving them the chance to pay.

 

[yorkie]

No, but they were advocating reporting Virgin straight to the ASA without even giving them a chance to sort it out. Which is just like taking a passenger straight to court without giving them the chance to pay.

I disagree; reporting a company to the ASA is hardly equivalent to taking them (or someone) to court.

Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to give Virgin a call on another number and speak to someone, and the OP did do this. I do think that sometimes there are some provocative initial posts that really shouldn't be posted (or worded differently) as if these provocations were not made, you would not end up with these sort of (mostly) hypothetical arguments where you end up with extreme opposing views and comparisons that can get really out of hand. If the OP had simply been advised to give Virgin one more try on another number, we'd not be having this crazy debate comparing court appearances with a report to the ASA!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I disagree; reporting a company to the ASA is hardly equivalent to taking them (or someone) to court.

Ok, so the ASA is non-statutory, but any disregard of their instructions would be viewed very dimly by the OFT and Ofcom who are very unlikely to disagree with the ASA. Reporting the company straight to the authorities is very much like reporting the customer straight to the courts. Why can't we be sensible and mature, and give people - and companies - the chance to sort out, what is probably just a cock up?

 

[island]

Reporting to the ASA in this instance is just likely to result in an informal resolution (i.e. the ASA rings Virgin and tells them not to do it again, and Virgin agrees).

 

[AlterEgo]

Or, what is infinitely preferable is contacting the company and saying:

"Hello, sorry but I seem to have received a strange email - is this an error?"

"Oh yes, I'm sorry about that, I'll correct it straight away. Thanks for letting us know."

Getting the ASA involved would be entirely appropriate if you got fobbed off, or if the material was deliberately misleading. The OP has both corrected Virgin's error (without the need of expending the ASA's time!) and been rewarded for his trouble.

What Island said still stands though; it's clearly an error and the ASA would probably just ask Virgin to correct it.

 

[mallard]

It's not the email that the OP was talking about reporting to the ASA, it was the phone line that just tells you to call a premium-rate number.

You can't accidentally set up a premium-rate number and move things over to it. It takes effort, it's not just an oversight. The only reason you would do it is to increase revenue, in this case it's clearly against the rules.

 

[AlterEgo]

You can't accidentally set up a premium-rate number and move things over to it. It takes effort, it's not just an oversight. The only reason you would do it is to increase revenue, in this case it's clearly against the rules.

What advertising rules?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Since when has using a premium rate phone number been "against the rules"?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[mallard]

Telling people to call a premium-rate number (or otherwise pay a fee) to find out the terms and conditions of a product is clearly against fair retailing and consumer protection rules. It's entirely appropriate to refer such things to the ASA.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Telling people to call a premium-rate number (or otherwise pay a fee) to find out the terms and conditions of a product is clearly against fair retailing and consumer protection rules. It's entirely appropriate to refer such things to the ASA.

Can you give me a link to the rule which states that companies cannot use premium rate telephone lines to contact the company? In this case they did NOT have to ring it to "find out terms and conditions" but to correct an error.

 

[island]

Section 2.6.2 of the PhonePayPlus Code of Practice has been violated, for a start.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do virgin have to comply though?
The PPP website isn't entirely clear, although it implies that it is only compulsory for companies running 087 numbers. In this case, it was an 0845


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[mallard]

In this case they did NOT have to ring it to "find out terms and conditions" but to correct an error.

I sometimes feel I'm the only person who can read on these forums...

The t&c's state: "25. Full Advance ticket terms and conditions are available at www.virgintrains.com or by calling 08457 222 333." which turns out to be another deception. That number is a recorded message telling me to call a premium rate 0871 number. One for the ASA I think.

The op is clearly complaining that the number he is instructed to call for terms and conditions actually leads to an automated message instructing him to call a premium-rate number. Both BT and the ASA have very strict rules about the use of premium-rate numbers and island's link makes it clear that this is against the rules.

 

[bb21]

I do believe that the more significant issue highlighted by the OP's experience is the issue involving premium-rate numbers than the duplicate email received.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I find it very unusual that they would redirect the 084 number to an 087 number. However, Virgin do run an 084 general contact/complaint line so I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out.

 

[AlterEgo]

The 084 number is no longer in use, and was replaced by the 087 number some time ago. Clearly the email text hasn't been updated for some time! The 087 number is Virgin Telesales costing 10p/min.

 

[island]

Do virgin have to comply though?
The PPP website isn't entirely clear, although it implies that it is only compulsory for companies running 087 numbers. In this case, it was an 0845

I think you may have gotten a little mixed-up. A telecommunications company which organizes premium-rate phone services for its customers is required to register with PPP, unless it only supplies 08 numbers.

Anyone operating a premium-rate number (0871 or higher, and some assorted others) must comply with the code, which is separate from registration.