mister p.

Ordered two items, both have been received - so no problem there.

However, I do not understand why they would forcibly require you to have a members card at the cost of £5 - surely this defeats the object that they claim of saving money, and who wants to be a member anyway - why should one need it? It seems to be a ponzi scheme - some people will order many items and some will hardly order at all, and its from this latter group that the company recoups their money for all the savings they claim that a customer can make.

I was able to contact them and have the card and membership cancelled, but why should I need to do that, why create this extra work for myself, why force a person or try to pull a fast one over this?

However, there was a pair of sandals on their site that interested myself, instead of ordering again from this outfit and having the same problems, I ordered directly from the company (peterstorm) where I got free delivery and the sandals were also cheaper, both of which was the opposite on gooutdoors.

It began three days ago where I was forced to contact Santander to try to change the OTP (One Time Password), as I was stopped from doing this with the online-account. I truly believe that if a person has entered the correct details, and as a consequence have got into the account then that person should then have the free run of the facilities - they dont think so.

Despite being told that I have passed security on at least three separate occasions (and on a fourth occasion having the phone put down on myself) they still would not help, as they thought that now they was going to ask more security questions - surly if you pass security - you have passed security - period!

But they wanted to change the rules of the game half way through, and now claim that they knew who was calling but still more security was needed to be passed. A bird does not have three, four or five wings, as two is enough, likewise in triangulating a mobile phone three masts are used not four, five or six, as three is enough, only a certain amount of questions is required to know who you are speaking with, anymore is doing it just because. Its not my fault they made a mistake by saying I had passed security, they should abide by what they claim.

They kept saying they know not who is calling, but if that is the case they also would not have any account details on the screen, yet they do, as they then blocked my use of an ATM, blocked access to my account online, and are holding what money I have in the account as a kind of ransom until they get what they want, which is to go to a branch with id - even though I have passed security. If they did not know who is calling they would not know which account to target - just to reiterate.

They are basically $#*! slapping me until they get what they want. Unfortunately for them I am not financially in dire straits, so there goes that leverage for them.

Have moved to this bank only two months ago, and already I am deeply troubled by their front line customer service telephone staff.

I telephoned three times on the trot, and and had to telephone this many times as I was not getting anywhere with the procedure.

I had one woman who would not even go ahead with the so-called security procedure if I did not say I was happy with the procedure, or at least not say I was unhappy with what she was doing, she also avoided answering, and repeatedly avoided answering any points I was making over her behaviour.

The second woman, even though she said I had passed security, would not do anything for myself unless I repeated every single sentence, to which I refused - I am not going to be treated like a fool and with a complete lack of respect just so she can keep her job; I thought that with call centre staff if you pass security they help - not the case with TSB bank.

I made a report in writing; their initial acknowledgement was full of we're here to help etc. I also put in my initial letter that I did not want a complaint to be made or it turned into a complaint. So what did they do... it was turned into a complaint, and they white washed everything, then claimed I had been treated fairly, before of course saying I could go to the FOS if I am unhappy with their response.

I sent a letter back pointing out that I had not wanted to make a complaint to try to stop them doing what they did, that is claiming that they have done nothing wrong, protecting their colleagues and the company and ultimatly themselves, before going on to describe what I thought if the whole process and that the only reason why it was made into a complaint by themselves was to do just that - to protect themselves as they know the complaints dept almost invariable rubber stamps that nothing wrong has happened.

Their reply was basically this is our final response - sod-off - but not in those words!

A bunch of bare faced liars if ever you come across.

[UPDATE]

No respet for the caller
Needed to call this outfit yesterday to make an enquiry about recent transactions. Went through the automated authentication ie acc no, sort code, three digit security number and date of birth in 6 digit format, but the automated system could not or would not provide all I wanted, so I eventually forced my way through to speak with an agent - calling himself Craig - a geordie.

He immediately states that he needs to go through authentication, but I reply I have done this and state the above details I have given (bear in mind from twenty years of dealing with call centre staff I know they lie); of course he states he has no details on the screen, and from here we get into a tussle, where he aggressively states "do you want my help?" I tell him he is being aggressive and could I speak with a supervisor; he goes to get one (or does he) comes back and tells myself that I will be called at some point in the afternoon; I state this is not good enough, that I am the phone now, but -and this is the point - he states or calls me by my name - something of which I have not given as I have given no details apart from those at the beginning of the call to the automated sysytem, and thus proving he was lying by stating that he had no details about myself. He tries to deny he is lying, which shows a complete lack of respect, denies that I had stated at the beginning of the call about what details I have given, then slams the phone down on myself.

And again more conclusive evidence that call centre staff have no respect for the caller as they think the caller is as thick as two short planks and can be lied to and manipulated. With impunity - but I am sure judging by my previous report I made about these staff above that I am being treated "fairily" - right.

I had the notion to buy ink cartridges for my printer, I came across this business, and thought I would buy a chip resetter as part of a refill kit. So I was going through the process of ordering and when it got to the confirmation of order placed, instead a page came up stating that the firewall had blocked my access, so of course I thought the order had failed, and went to another site and just ordered very cheap cartridges (something I wish I had come across before finding Prink).

Next morning I find an email from Prink informing myself that the order was successful - but I did not need the order now, so I contacted via email Prink stating that I wanted to cancel the order and explained what had happened when I tried to order.

I got a somewhat angry response from the guy, so I sent a reply email correcting the claims he made in his email.

Now I had been in contact with my bank, and was told that the payment was pending acceptance', which means he could have not accepted the payment, in other words 'cancelled the order', but he went on and took payment, and the emails exchange was made during and before he accepted payment.

I received the item and immediately sent back with a printout of the firewall page that blocked viewing of confirmation. I have not received a refund or any word from the guy.

[UPDATE - REPLY]

Despite his protestations, I have not been refunded the money.

There is nothing wrong with using TOR, it does not mean that one is automatically a criminal or is doing no good, lots of people use Tor.

There is also nothing wrong in using an anonymous email address to defend oneself from possible spammy emails from a company/organisation that would possible send them - its good sense.

I state again he had plenty of time to cancel the order - but did not - and sent it anyway.

And the problems witht the processing of the order its a sign of a misconfigured server - its not the users fault as he tries to assert.

What I wrote is factual, but his only rebuttals is a personal attack, and this is in line with what I wrote that he is touchy, sensitive (although I recognise that this by myself is a personal attack attack on him, but then again it is a seemingly one man show) and dishonest - not a person to do any business with in particular if anything goes wrong.

I am looking for an ISP, so I called this outfit to sound them out, this afternoon.

I got the usual what packages I could have etc... but then I had my own unique question, "what are your call centre staff like, do they argue, argue, argue,. Do they think its a competition with the caller to get their own way?" He replied that the staff are very friendly, but of course I dont believe that, so I asked him to prove it if he could, and also he would be friendly as he is in sales. He then tried to change the subject to what he wanted to talk about - whether I wanted to sign up - but I kept pressing for what I wanted, an answer to my question, but as he changed the subject (something that call centre staff do in all companies) I put it to him that it would be reasonable to assume, considering that he has just done what call centre staff do in other companies, that they would argue argue argue after all he has just tried to effectively lie by the change of subject. Instead of replying to the point, he then claims that he has told me about the package, how much it costs etc... but again this is a tactic that call centre staff use to avoid answering the point. So then he has the bright idea of bringing a supervisor onto the phone, but of course asks whether I would like that, I say no, and he gets the supervisor anyway. The supervisor arrives on the phone and immediately asks a leading question - what is it that I want help with (bare in mind that he goes on to tell myself that he had been listening to the call - so he already knows), I tell him that I did not ask for him, to which he claims he knows. I then bring up what the previous chap had been trying to avoid dealing with - if you are doing this then is it not reasonable to assume that you will behave in exactly the same way as call centre staff in other companies and that you are lying when claiming that you are friendly. He then states he is ending the call, he makes his excuses, wishes myself to have a good rest of the day, and plonks the phone down, while I am saying repeatedly "you are doing the same thing", in other words trying to sound friendly while being rude.

So yes they are just as friendly, as call centre staff in all other call centres, and it is safe to assume that if one signs up, as they have already treated the caller badly, thus proving that they are no better, that if one needed to contact their team one would have a hard time of it.

Believe it not I will not be signing up, after their proving my suspicions correct.

The following is what uswitch is trying to have removed from the truspilot review site claiming it breaches the rules - yet it is an honest review - which they dont like of course - enjoy.

There are on the whole three types of tactics call centre staff use to get their own way; the first is by just blah, blah, blah, just keep talking until the caller makes the decision to end the call, the second being making an excuse to end the call, and the third by using an opportunity to end the call; all three require manipulation, either of the caller, the recording that is made, or both. I was on a call yesterday that took 45 minutes to complete - why?

Why was I calling, because there is a problem with their site, that this company has not read the GDPR, in so much that there needs to be an opt-out button for cookies.

The first woman I spoke with, even though I told her why I was calling, ploughed on with what she wanted "Could you give me your postcode...", she was not listening to what I was saying, I needed to repeat myself several times and she still could not be bothered to listen or register what I was saying - I then got it, she was giving me the middle finger, so I asked to speak with a supervisor.

The supervisor even though she offered to give me an email address of uswitch (who you call is actually carphonewharehouse btw) would not listen or register when I said I will report the matter to ICO. Repeatedly, she kept offering an email address, I asked "have I not replied to your offer of an email address several times", but no offer, other than an email address is given.

Then I asked to speak to a manager, who turned out to be the worst of the lot. I told him "maybe you can just do the honest thing, instead of trying to manipulate myself, the call and the recording to make sure that you keep your job, just end the call". Its quite clear that they wanted the call to end but wanted myself to end the call, and if they did not get that they just hung-on to the call for dear life repeating themselves, and I hate giving call centre staff anything, I am not responsible for them keeping their job, nor will I be made responsible for them keeping their job - I am a stickler with this.

So this managers respose to my statement was "I am looking to get you the best deal possible, and for you to goaway happy" - how does that answer the point/question I was making? Just another tactic.

This guy was a complete cretin, he repeatedly tried to get me the best deal, he talked about his favorite football team, asked what I was doing tonight - and all to avoid doing what he knew I wanted - put the damned phone down in an honest fashion without trying to use myself to keep his job.

At one point he said we were having a conversation, to which I balked, I was not there to have a conversation.

I was getting increasingly frustrated with the antics of this guy, so I said you must get punched a lot? He replied there was little chance of that as he was 6'4.

I then started ranting and told him I did not need to know about his favorite football team, how they played last night or anything about his life. He replied that I sounded like his wife.

Four times I put the phone down on my table and did something while he blahed on. To this when he did not hear me he tried to use the opportunity to make an excuse for himself (making sure he got it on the recording of course) to end the call as there was no one there anymore - shows an indication of his real intention.

He then says that he could put the phone down whenever he wanted, but after I couple of minutes I twigged that he could not, otherwise he would have done so a longtime ago, and I told him so as well.

He then used the recording to make an excuse for himself to put the phone down, and did so while I was still talking.

This guy has something wrong with him, indeed they all have, but this guy in particular, and I told him as well.

He seamlessly went through all three tactics that call centre staff employ, as described at the beginning of this tome.

I also forgot to mention the trick leading questions employed by all three staff, such as do you want me to end the call, and are you asking for the call to end, and do you want my help, all asked to elicit permission from myself so they can end the call and keep their job, when all I wanted is for them to not do any of it and be honest.

If you want to keep your sanity dont call. It will take days to get the dirt of this call of my body.

Reporting this review just further proves how dishonest you are; this is a review of my experience calling you, none is a lie and parts have been missed out.

We all know that complaints almost invariably get nowhere as in the same way as above all you are trying to do is not admit anything wrong has happened to protect the company and employees therein.
You will claim that you will need to investigate, but the only reason why you want to do this is to see whether you can find anything to lesson the companies culpability, and if possible if you think you have enough switch the complaint around into making a complaint about the complainer. So what is the point of taking part in a completely bogus process - therefore my experience is posted here, and if somehow you get your way it will be posted elsewhere where you cannot get it deleted - what will you do about that then?

And its really rubbing my face in horse manure wishing myself have a nice day isnt it after what you are attempting.

This will now be posted elsewhere - tough luck.

I bought the Almond Unsweetened Milk Substitute yesterday (24/09/19) having never had this before, and hearing this type of product being raved about I thought I would try.

Immediately upon the first mouthful there was a bad taste in my mouth, followed by a bad lingering after taste, and smell. This lasted well into the late evening - it just kept coming back at you like a bad salesman or a rash.

During the night my ears began ringing, in the morning I awoke to ringing ears and the sensation that I had cotton wool in my ears, and therefor limited hearing.

I live on a limited diet, almost invariably eating the same food, therefor when a new food is introduced and there is a reaction of some kind I know what has caused the situation.

I had a telephone conversation with one of their woman representatives about the co-operatives email address and that I wanted her to give it to myself. Instead of doing what I asked she repeatedly tried to scam myself for my details before she would even bother to deal with the request; but for something that does not require a login as I was not requesting anything to be done with the account, I know this is not needed and refused to succumb. Nonetheless she tried and tried and tried. She then out of the blue made the claim that she found myself 'threatening'; I was a little surprised, and asked how so? She then changed the subject to avoid answering the question citing her need to get a supervisor as a diversionary tactic. But I kept pressing for an answer as to why she found myself aggressive, to which I got no answer.

I then made a written complaint. The first response was basically a switch around where they looked for something to blame myself, and then turn my complaint into a complaint about myself - but what I brought to them was not answered, and they also found that they had done nothing wrong as part of their standard process.

I made another complaint about the handling of the complaint. The point was taken that my complaint had been switched to a complaint about myself, but then the same result ie they have done nothing wrong was achieved via a different method.

They did backwardly admit by including the woman calling myself 'threatening' that the incident did take place, but you have to laugh at the reason why she did not change the subject that was made "... strictly speaking she did not change the subject, she asked to get a supervisor..." but still there is no explanation for this statement.

Ironically, a few weeks later I called again, and asked whether they had got my emails; I was then put through the same bogus validation that is completely unnecessary given what I was asking. This call ended and I had to call again, this time though I was told that they had the email, and the woman also registered a complaint and found in my favour - for something that is essentially the same as the first complaint - emails!

But no according to the complaints investigator, this second complaint that was found in my favour was found in my favour because there was a yes/no answer.

The email address of the co-operativebank is on their website, but the explanation given as to why this first woman would not give myself the email address is "... I do not agree that Nicola declined to provide an email address..." but she did by trying manipulate the situation by using leveraging what I wanted to get what she wanted first - a competition, and they are always leveraging this is how they operate, and then deny they have done anything wrong when challenged about this behaviour and make the statement "we are here to help".

What they have done with the complaints could be summerised as follows; should I punch you to the ground you would not be happy, but I know that if you do not have the money to take myself to court, and I know the bodies charged with dealing with this will not, then you have to bring myself to do something about it - it is not in my best interests to admit I have done anything wrong. I will say that I need to instigate an investigation, but the only reason why is to find anything against you that you did that I can use to lesson my culpability. Worse still I am the judge, jury and executioner - I control the outcome.

What they should do is admit that they have done something wrong, punish the person who did it, and promise not to do it again. What they are doing in actuality is trying to pull a fast one where they get to rejudge (what you have found to be wrong and what is wrong) in their favour, then palm it off as the real judgement.

I was thinking at one point of sounding out this isp with a view of joining them; however, neither by telephone nor email could I get a response.

When I reported my experience on trustpilot, onestream had my post removed even though it is a genuine experience. So the post is here instead - try to get this removed!

I found due to needing to call PP about something that my telephone number is linked to a paypal account - I do not have a paypal account.

Over the course of three weeks - obsessive - I have telephoned them to get the account removed from my telephone number; I found it disturbing after all what other details are linked to my number, bank, name, address...

Not one I have called have helped, I have had dubious excuses thrown at myself as to why, but no unlinking.

1... I have paid for something online and the online merchant has used paypal behind my back - as I rebutt when you purchase something there are clearly at least two ways to pay, paypal or a proper online card merchant, and besides surly a paypal payment would show on my bank statement - to which the phone is slammed down by them.

2... That I should contact my telephone company to have them do something about my telephone number being linked to a paypal account - rebuttal why does everyone else have to run around for paypal changing their records? - phone slammed down by them.

3... I have called paypal before.

I could go on and on with the scams and fastones they have pulled, but suffice it to say that this is a company that the employees think they can do what they want.

BTW also can not make a complaint, unless you are a member aka have agreed to their conditions and rules - WTF!

Also keeping one in a telephone queue for as long as they do is rude.

Where do I begin?

Even though they claim I can access my bill online - I would have to allow them to track my activities while I view my bill and any other account details via cookies that have been deliberately mixed - marketing and essential cookies -to cause obfuscation. According to the GDPR one is not supposed to have no opt out of marketing cookies, yet BT deliberately flout the rules; I say they flout the rules as I have told them. They say as a defense "but other companies use cookies"; which bring us to the next problem - everything you say has to be contradicted, argued and quibbled; you are not allowed to be right, or to go away thinking you have won. Its like they want to control your thoughts, like an adult controls a child.

Every call is a war. You call for something that has no need for them to access the account - such as how does something or other work? - of course they claim they cannot do anything until they access your account.

They constantly claim that you have not tild them why you are calling - yet it is the first thing you do. They even claim this when quite clearly you have repeatedly told them why you are calling - which I have cottoned on to as a tactic by the telephone staff of trying to get you to change the subject - a bit like going to a tarot card reader, and keep going to different tarot card readers, until you get the reading you like; with them just keep saying you need to tell me the reason for the call, until you change the subject to something they are happy with.

They claim they have no account details on the screen, yet quite freely seem to know your last calls and the reasons for the calls, and your name.

They claim that you will not be charged for a paper bill; yet when it comes to the crunch you are charged for a paper bill, and when you call, you are told "that hasnt been written down."

On top of all this and more, there is the situation that there is no customer service that deals with the problems that customer service creates for the customer, and whenever you tell whoever you are on the phone with of what one of their colleagues have done, all that is said too try to wriggle out of commenting on a fellow member of staff is "but I wasnt on that call so I dont know what happened"; these two things combined make the BT telephone staff completely unaccountable.

Awful. Ask not what the call centre staff can do for you, ask what you can do for them.

I made several calls yesterday. Let me rephrase I was forced to make several calls yesterday.

I originally called due to a contradiction in their terms for a £60 voucher. At clause 5 they state something like you are not eligible for the voucher until or for 90 days. This is followed by clause 6 that states that once your line has been activated then you will receive the voucher. I called them to explain. I got the usual corporate blarney that tried to explain away this issue. Of course the explanation barely was in line with the words in the clauses.

Other gems to note include the following from this call and subsequent calls include: the passing the buck tactic, forever accusing myself of not providing a reason for the call, accusing myself of calling the wrong number, condescension by phrases such as 'is your tea getting cold' or 'I think the simpsons is on now' ie trying to get myself to end the call without the agent having to tell myself to go away or end the call, myself having to repeatedly say 'as you are not helping please put the phone down', the abuse by these tactics of the caller, going beyond the norm of acceptable behaviour ie forever despite being told to go away refusing by remaining on the call, changing the subject when the questions that the caller asks or the points that the caller makes are too close to home, the complete make over of the call by the agent as if the caller has asked a different question entirely so that the agent can deal with the call as if an entirely different person is on the call, forever carolling to get what the agent wants... the list does just go on.

Overall, condescending, arrogant, devious, manipulative, breaking the rules of acceptable behaviour, forever angling for a result which is good for the agent and to hell with what the caller feels or wants. Did I mention selfish?

I would give minus stars if I could.

Also why give a telephone number to contact them on their web page and it states to contact uswitch use this number, but if used you get through to a different organisation?

Just spent the better part of 90 minutes on three calls with these clowns. The first call the female representative could not get past forcing myself to answer a question which I could have supplied any answer I wanted and she would be non the wiser. When it became clear to her that I was not going to help her keep her job, she hung up.

The second call I asked another female representative whether they have call logging feature because of the question I was asked on the first call. This one tried to make out that she had no idea what call logging is, only to go on and use call-logging to tell myself that I had called before and what the call was about. She them went on to pull a classic call centre trick, that is say just wait a moment, then after a certain amount of time has elapsed, come back to the phone put the phone down, because there is a rule that states that if a certain amount of time has passed with no sound then the hapless employee can put the phone down - no thats not using the call to keep her job - now is it?

The third, I was to a superviser, who subsequently refused to answer questions about what had happened on the first two calls, who deflected, who made excuses about deflecting, then made an excuse for herself to put the phone down. And just as she was I told her to eff-off. And she and they deserve it.

Needless to say but I have just sent them an email to close the account.

I have posted reviews on trustpilot of various companies. I was doing so just a week ago where I posted one review and it was accepted, then I went to post another. Its at this point that I was logged out. I contacted them by email to explain the problem. Just got a reply back today. Apparently their "advanced software" had noticed "patterns" and this was why it happened. They have not explained what they mean by pattern nor offered to rectify the situation. I am just without being told (manipulation) banned from posting out of the blue with no adequate explanation. So ironically I am posting on sitejabber about trustpilot - ha!

[UPDATE] - OK, since the above this has happened. They reinstated my account - or did they? You see despite being now able to login and see my reviews, I can only see my reviews when I am logged in. If I am not logged in my reviews do not appear in the general timeline. I have contacted them about this a couple of times, and they claim that there is no problem. So I made a more thorough check. I used two browsers. One browser I was logged in to trustpilot, and the second I was not. Sure enough, I could not see my reviews on the browser where I was not logged in, but could with the browser I was logged in with. So I made one final complaint. I mentioned yet again what I had read twitter were doing, and that is "shadow accounting". This practice is exactly as I have just described. It is where for all intents and purposes when logged in you can post and see your reviews - but no one else can. This is what trustpilot is doing as well.

[Further update] - They have relented and given back full site privileges.

Upon the first three calls I made to this company, all three women I talked with, subsequently wrote, on my record, that I had not answered security questions. I pointed out when I found out about this that the opposite was true. The manager I was talking with found that I was correct, and he apologised profusely; but that set the tone of my stay with plusnet.

Here is one for you, just to show that they are playing the caller and are not very good at it. I state that they must have my details on the screen as I am calling them using the line I rent from them The reply I got was sublime and went something like this "No, no, no, it doesnt matter that you are calling us using the line that you rent from us, we have no details on the screen, it is a white screen, a blank screen. I am waiting for you to give me the answers to the questions so that I can pull up your details (drum roll for the punch line) Mr Jones!"

Here is how it ended. I had had enough of them, so I put in a termination of contract request. This takes two weeks to go through because of the BT engineers. Near the end I cancel the termination request, and I am told that the termination request had been cancelled. But as it turns out there is a difference between what they claim is happening and what will happen. At the end of the two weeks on a Monday I awake, do my stuff, and then went to switch on the internet. Nothing - no connection. Same with the phone line. You see by the end they were taking my protestations personally, and this move by plusnet was personal. They had no intention of cancelling the cancellation.

So I would say stay away.

I for one do not trust call centre staff as I have been lied to by them too many times. The call centre staff that this company employ are no exception. Case in point, yesterday I called using a phone I have never used to call Nationwide before. I was not asked any identifying questions before being put through to someone. This phone is also not registered with them. Yet after ten minutes (approx) the woman slips and tells me my name. I point out approx two minutes later that she had told me my name. She went into denial. You know the kind of denial that call centre staff excel at. That is change the subject, make an excuse such as I dont recall doing that etc... Not only this but she had asked previously whether there were any other questions I had that she could help me with. So of course I started asking questions about their telephone customer service, to which she tried one way after another to not answer any questions. I said to her you have no intention of honouring what you promised. After 26 minutes she put the phone down on myself. This is another thing. Tell them to put the phone down as they are doing nothing but string you along and try all sorts of tricks to wriggle out of doing what is asked, including claiming that they do not have permission. But they all work for the same company and if one can do it they all can do it. Which by-the-way they do on almost every call.

They use voice recognition software, and your training it. Thats what you are doing by answering their remedial 'security' questions.

Never a straight answer is given. They are only interested in hijacking your call to get what they need to keep their job.

Basically money was taken from my account.

Lloyds have not refunded the money, as is claimed they will do on their online guarantee.

Lloyds have not followed the rules of the FCA in this matter either. Despite claiming they are regulated by the FCA in most of their documentation.

BTW they are not only regulated by the FCA but are also authorized by the FCA which means they definitely have to follow the rules of the FCA.

They have lied both to myself and all outside bodies ie the FOS, FCA.

Their staff have lied about my behaviour while in one of their branches. I was accused of being aggressive and threatening. But here is the problem. Three hours later I returned to the local branch, only to have the woman who subsequently lied about my behviour, to not know who I was or why I was there. You would think with someone who had been aggressive and threatening with you three hours earlier, that you would remember who that person is. It does not pan out.

Avoid these clowns. Deal with them at your own peril.

I have contacted these clowns on numerous occasions in the past 24 hours. Reason is that I received a letter from a company offering me a loan that I have never had any dealings with. This produced an itch that needed to be scratched. So I contacted the company. It turned out they had got my details from equifax. I have no account with equifax; (I did quite some time ago have a trial account that was cancelled before I had to pay anything). But as I write I have no account with equifax. I then contacted equifax for an explanation. I have been given the run-around. The indian call centre staff are almost incomprehensible, as anyone speaking english is to them. They are not interested in what you want; they are only interested in what they want. I like the way the caller can go into a rant about why they are calling and the problems they are having, and the question comes back from the hapless call centre staff "why are you calling" (I call it the magic eight ball, that is if they dont like what you say they pretend you havent said anything and ask why you are calling over and over again until they get an answer they can deal with - like shaking the magic eight ball when you dont get the result you wanted). At all points when I contact them they presume they can pull up my details from a non existent account, and dont know how to cope when you challenge them about that.

The excuses they have given. They have tried to blame a building society or a bank for giving equifax details. But this is a red herring as its the banks and building societies that come to them for details. They have tried to blame the electorial role and myself for not ticking the box that stops one from being placed on the open register. I always tick the box to stop that from happening.

Here is another for you; it quite clear from the tone of the conversation and the way the conversation is progressing what you want to be done by them. Instead of doing this, they ask whether you want it done. I reply "what do you think?" bear in mind the general direction of the conversation. If they dont get an answer that complies with what they want they pretend they dont know what to do. They even go as far when challenged about this to say something like - well judging from what you have said I would say you would like me to do this. But still nothing is done until they get a certain three letter word.

I had one of their call centre staff, come back from yet another break, to then ask me whether I am going to answer his questions. But due to my considerable experience calling call centres I immediately knew what he was up to. He had gone away to ask a supervisor for permission to put the phone down on myself, and had been given the go-ahead to do so as long as he once again checks by asking myself that question before putting the phone down. I told him of this instead of answering his question, and included that he was using the call to keep his job. He agreed before putting the phone down on myself.

All I can write is morons.

Lloyds bank, when I was with them, conned me out of a fraud claim, to which I went to the Financial Ombudsman. Despite all the evidence, that is a BCOBS 5. 1. 11 guideline by the FCA that Lloyds was ignoring, even though Lloyds claim they are regulated by the FCA, the FOS found nothing wrong. They claimed or claim that they find a solution which is fair to both parties. It was not fair to myself though, as I had provided evidence that I had already repeatedly done what Lloyds had asked for, but the FOS just claimed 'do it again'. Did you realise that only 1 out of 4 claims are found in favour of the issuer of the complaint at the FOS, and that they are funded by the Banks through the dealing with complaints on behalf of the banks - the FOS is a cheap way for the banks to deal with a complaint in the banks favour. And why shouldnt it be like this if the shoe was on the other foot and the FOS was given money from taxpayers through the government the onus would be to find in favour of the taxpayer - would it not. A law unto themselves. They operate with impunity. It is their own fiefdom.

I have since discovered that when they are producing a verdict, they not only use what is fair, but they use what is fair in relation to the terms and conditions of the financial company. They also claim they use FCA rules - but there is a problem with that. The FCA rules do not apply to individual account holders. That is if you have a current account with a bank then you are not covered by the FCA. Also the terms and conditions of the bank does not need to include anything about the FCA. This means that should the individual sign up for a current account and the FCA is not included, in the terms and conditions then you as an individual are not covered by the FCA. So how can the FOS use the excuse that they use the FCA rulings in their deliberations; I ask you? Only I suppose, if the terms and conditions include mention of the FCA; if not, then lets move on.

Due to this even I agree that Lloyds have done nothing wrong; at least legally.

I have now have more info after receiving the SAR documentation. I noticed that what Lloyds Bank had provided was scant. Plus there was no mention of listening to the recordings I had made of Lloyds Bank telephone staff. But focusing upon the scant information, made me thinks of three questions to put to the financial ombudsman. The first is do you bother to check that the information given by the financial institution is correct? The second question - do you bother to check the information is complete, and the third question do you check to see if the information supplied has not been 'cherry picked' by the financial institution to influence your decision? I called them this morning and the FOS do not check - period.

Update - As it happens the SAR that was promised by the FOS would answer my questions did not. So I was cheated out of £10.00. I keep contacting them asking questions and now they are stonewalling. I contacted the ICO about this whole situation. The ICO contacted by email the FOS and the FOS responded to the ICO almost simultaneously. But any replies to myself take at least five days to be responded to if I am lucky.

Its quite clear that the recorded conversations I had with Lloyds was not listened to at all by the FOS. The recordings are a vital evidence, so vital that it would determine a decision.

Upon further scrutiny, the FOS have admitted that they ask for information from both sides then select what the FOS think is relevant. In other words, because of this practise they conduct an investigation for themselves - as it turns out just like the ICO do.

I have been with them for 6 months; in six months I will be leaving. Why, they are not superior as they claim. Their lines are run on BT lines just like any other internet company in the UK, and their customers service is just like any other internet company in the UK.

I had need to call to ask questions. When I got through I had the call be put on hold/mute indefinitely at least three times. Due to my considerable knowledge of call centres (particularly talktalk/bt) I knew that this is a tactic that call centre staff use to force you to go away. Of course making sure that they dont actually tell you to go away, or be caught in any way putting the phone down on you.

I also had the privilege of one of them saying that she had no details about myself (again due to my considerable experience of call centres I knew this to be a lie) and later after I sent an angry email to them about what had happened, I was proved to be correct, as they was able miraculously to find all the calls I made - how strange!

There is nothing different about this company from talktalk, bt, plusnet et all...

[UPDATE - long overdue]

This company did not like the following review about what they did and had it effectively removed from trustpilot, so I place it here as a permanent reminder to both trustpilot and zen-internet that they maybe able to remove from one site, but cannot expunge this from the web - enjoy:)

My experience with Zen could be indicated by how it ended; one morning I called five times only for their call centre staff to end the call while I am talking on each occasion - without even bothering to ask who I am; I then receive notice that they are ending the contract on the Friday to which they did.

Why, because I challenged them that they already have the caller details on the screen in front of them, and therefore have no need to put me through the spanish-inquisition - and putting the phone down five times on the trot, without asking my details is an clear indication that they knew who was calling and therefore I was correct.