MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

Want to know how to receive English Channels via the Internet in North Cyprus? Need to repair or buy a laptop?

Moderators: Soner, Dragon, PoshinDevon

User avatar
frontalman
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2012 11:11 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 51 of 168 in Discussion

Post by frontalman »

"Imagine a customer walking in, filling the cancellation form, gets approved, and he demands refund to be in sexual favors, and says 'but you said its unconditional'..."

Why 'he'? A bit sexist isn't it?

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 52 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Mowglie: You are right about one thing - I am beginning to feel like "Alice inWonderland" or perhaps "Through the looking glass"

MM: Iam not qualified to advise on the Law in the TRNC and do not have a work permit, so I seriously and respectfully suggest that in their own interests MM use one of their computers to search the legal definition of "Unconditional" and also look up the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act (with similar Acts in the USA and the "Republic of Cyprus" among others), not to mention EU legislation on Equal Opportunites relating the disabled people. Then get legal advice on redrafting their advertising, website and probably contracts before anyone less kind than wnd thinks about breach of c ontract. What to do about existing contracts, I don't know.

Perhaps they should also consider how many of their customers may have no option to leave the TRNC and realise that wnd situation is far from an unusual one.

ALL Using this forum must be softening my brain. I woke up in the early hours to realise that the comparison with Statutory Authorities does does not hold water (ooops, pun unintended!) because they are paid in arrears , not in advance so the question of a refund does not normally arise. And for overdue payment, I think they are prepared to accept this from anyone who will give them money! Would that there were an ISP that would charge in arrears for usage, rather than demand a lump sum that probably largely subsidises those with the greatest usage. And before anyone screams, there could be a deposit for the equipment .

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 53 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

Ragged Robin wrote: MM use one of their computers to search the legal definition of "Unconditional"
RR the following is my personal view and nothing more, which I hope I can share here without accusations of being aggressive or that I am trying to tell other people what they must think ?

To me is seems obvious that any 'unconditional money back guarantee' from any company any where in the world refers to unconditionality in regards to 'why' the customer is requesting a refund and not to the 'how' that refund is processed and delivered. Why do I think this is obvious ? I think it is obvious because if you think about it, considering the unconditionality to apply to the 'how' a refund is delivered creates inherent and obvious (to me at least) problems. For example any company issuing a refund has to make sure the refund is given to the correct person. In the interpretation that unconditionality applies to how a refund is given, any means by which a company might do this would then be a 'condition' - thus meaning it would be impossible for any company anywhere to ever offer an 'unconditional money back guarantee' under such an interpretation ?

To the best of my knowledge in the many years now MM has been offering this guarantee, that I feel compelled to point out again, no other ISP any where that I know of offers, this is the first time a customer has questioned that the 'unconditionaliy' applies to both the why AND the how and not just the why.

Gozoa
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2016 2:33 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 54 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Gozoa »

It is quite obvious that unconditional in this context refers to "without requesting any reason for cancellation".

It is also quite obvious that if you have rented equipment that needs to be given back before you get the refund that the process will not be instant an one.

Complaining about something that is this obvious on an internet Forum and picking fault with the wording , as though speaking to some kind of Global Corporation that assesses for misrepresentation, and stating THAT is the issue (and not the lack of common sense)...

...when the entire "situation" is resolved with a 50Tl Dongle.

Little strange.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 55 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

If you read our original post you will see that we have never asked for an "instant" refund. We are quite prepared to wait for our refund whilst Multimax follow their normal procedures. The problem arises because Multimax will only give the refund by cheque to the subscriber. They will not issue a refund any other way or to any other person. They will not give the cheque to a trusted nominee, will not pay the cheque into our local Creditwest bank account or transfer the money electronically into the same. As we will not be in the TRNC at that time, it would be impossible to go in person to Multimax's office to collect the cheque. This condition effectively means that we would not get our refund. If a refund was conditional upon the subscriber going in person and collecting the cheque, this should have been stated in the terms and conditions.

turtle
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012 10:44 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 56 of 168 in Discussion

Post by turtle »

Just a thought,.... If WotNoDeeds contract does not run out until April 2017 then as they are still in the previous contract couldn't they just cancel the new agreement of April 17-April 18 and get a full refund then give notice on the remainder of the current contract?..all this could be concluded before they embark to pastures new. yes / no

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 57 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

Good suggestion Turtle. No so sure Multimax will think it's a good idea but we await their response. Quite honestly we are not that bothered about a refund for the six week period beginning March to mid-April and would be willing to forego a refund for that period. We do, however, require a refund of the 1299 TL paid in advance for the annual period mid-April 2017 - mid-April 2018.

Hector
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013 3:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 58 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Hector »

I have to say that I back raggedrobin and have empathy with WotNoDeeds in this. How long would a business in say, the UK (I know I should wash my mouth out with soap for mentioning the UK) if they responded in such a negative and defensive manner to their customers? There seems to be a business attitude of attacking customers (after all who needs them?) who have the stupidity and audacity to complain (not just MM).

I'm also amazed at how vitriolic some posters on this forum are to those who dare express their unhappiness at certain 'sacred cow' companies (and to those that attempt to support them).

Would it harm TRNC businesses if they responded with 'We apologise, we got this wrong and will attempt to put it right and ensure it doesn't happen again in the future. We have amended our processes so that refunds can be made direct to ....?' What did that cost the company other than loss of future business, customer loyalty and goodwill if they don't?

Gozoa
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2016 2:33 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 59 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Gozoa »

WotNoDeeds wrote:If you read our original post you will see that we have never asked for an "instant" refund. We are quite prepared to wait for our refund whilst Multimax follow their normal procedures. The problem arises because Multimax will only give the refund by cheque to the subscriber. They will not issue a refund any other way or to any other person. They will not give the cheque to a trusted nominee, will not pay the cheque into our local Creditwest bank account or transfer the money electronically into the same. As we will not be in the TRNC at that time, it would be impossible to go in person to Multimax's office to collect the cheque. This condition effectively means that we would not get our refund. If a refund was conditional upon the subscriber going in person and collecting the cheque, this should have been stated in the terms and conditions.

In that case, Multimax should be aware that their misuse of the English language is responsible for this issue.

Because the full statement, as they intend, is paradoxical. In other words it contradicts itself:-

"Refunds are unconditional (BUT can only be made via Cheque)"


However, this is not an intentional mistake by them and may well be written in small print in the contract and if it was then they are not at fault in the least.

Also, this is certainly a policy introduced to help their customers and it is also quite natural for such a misrepresentation (assuming it isn't in small print) in a non-native English speaking Country to be inadvertently made and it does not present any kind of malicious intent, rather a misunderstanding that will cause a minor inconvenience to anyone misled by this statement. Minor inconvenience because this very policy allows you to collect over a 1000TL in refund, at a cost of 50TL to get a Dongle.

It appears that they may have quietly recognized this minor wording error by making a compromise on the official policy and I am sure this thread has sufficiently embarrassed them in spite of their efforts to appease the situation.... with some people wondering why they appear slightly defensive over the issue .

I do not think you would be mistaken to point out this misrepresentation in writing to them if you felt that necessary, so they know how it could potentially mislead. But this is quite clearly a policy designed to provide an additional benefit to the customer and I don't think it is possible to justify such an embarrassment, they don't need to be punished for it. The expression "cut them some slack" comes to mind.

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 60 of 168 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

Gozoa wrote:"Refunds are unconditional (BUT can only be made via Cheque)"
We actually never say refunds are unconditional. We only say "you have an unconditional right to a refund [for the unused portion of the account]".

And that right has been granted UNCONDITIONALLY to everybody so far who has filled the cancellation form.

This is actually is the first case where a customer wants to return an item, and still wants to use it, and then expects the providing company to modify the refund process completely to suit their needs after they fill out the cancellation form.

K.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 61 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Hector wrote:I have to say that I back raggedrobin and have empathy with WotNoDeeds in this. How long would a business in say, the UK (I know I should wash my mouth out with soap for mentioning the UK) if they responded in such a negative and defensive manner to their customers? There seems to be a business attitude of attacking customers (after all who needs them?) who have the stupidity and audacity to complain (not just MM).

I'm also amazed at how vitriolic some posters on this forum are to those who dare express their unhappiness at certain 'sacred cow' companies (and to those that attempt to support them).

Would it harm TRNC businesses if they responded with 'We apologise, we got this wrong and will attempt to put it right and ensure it doesn't happen again in the future. We have amended our processes so that refunds can be made direct to ....?' What did that cost the company other than loss of future business, customer loyalty and goodwill if they don't?
Oh very well put Hector , Thank you. That is exactly what I have been trying to get over all along.

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 62 of 168 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

Hector wrote:Would it harm TRNC businesses if they responded with 'We apologise, we got this wrong and will attempt to put it right and ensure it doesn't happen again in the future. We have amended our processes so that refunds can be made direct to ....?' What did that cost the company other than loss of future business, customer loyalty and goodwill if they don't?
If you go back and search this forum and the internet in general, you will find Multimax apologizing for many things, unfortunately, this is not one of those cases. There is a reason we have an accounting department, a legal department, procedures and laws of this country.

All of those professional people working for MM and those who were consulted sat together and decided that the best and safest way to issue a refund to a customer is by check in return for a signature, after going through certain processes (like collecting equipment, testing it, accounting department calculating refund etc).

We have given this customer option to squeeze all these processes just to 1 week(usually 2-3 weeks), and issue a refund to them if they allow us to collect the equipment one week before they leave the country, but was refused.

You must think all the professionals working in MM are all stupid people and we needed this customer to show our wrong, and we should have just come to our senses, admit our mistake and immediately apologize, and amend our procedures. Unfortunately that is not the case, all our professionals in the company are there to protect the rights of the customers, as well as MMs.

K.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 63 of 168 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

turtle wrote:Just a thought,.... If WotNoDeeds contract does not run out until April 2017 then as they are still in the previous contract couldn't they just cancel the new agreement of April 17-April 18 and get a full refund then give notice on the remainder of the current contract?..all this could be concluded before they embark to pastures new. yes / no
As far as I know, there is only one contract, signed at the beginning of service, everything else is just a renewal.

I will forward this to MM accounting and legal departments to see what they think.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

Dave G
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2016 7:02 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 64 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Dave G »

A couple of people have mentioned POA, but I have seen no response to this, wound MM accept this?

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 65 of 168 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

A notarized POA is a legal document that and it has to be accepted by law, provided that it explicitly states the intended purpose.

MM accounting and legal departments are willing to help with contents of POA if required, you can send an email to [email protected]

K.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 66 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

Turtle wrote

Just a thought,.... If WotNoDeeds contract does not run out until April 2017 then as they are still in the previous contract couldn't they just cancel the new agreement of April 17-April 18 and get a full refund then give notice on the remainder of the current contract?..all this could be concluded before they embark to pastures new. yes / no

I have written to Multimax to cancel the new agreement and await their response.

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 67 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Good luck wnd!!

I know this is a busy time for you, but I hope you will be able to spare the time to let us know the eventual outcome, as some of us are facing the sad possibility of being in a similar situation in future. and the uncertainty is causing additional stress.

By the way (to avoid taking this thread ot) Bowman started a new Thread "Bank Transfers within the TRNC". The responses throw an interesting light on this one.

User avatar
waddo
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 4638
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012 7:21 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 68 of 168 in Discussion

Post by waddo »

"as some of us are facing the sad possibility of being in a similar situation in future. and the uncertainty is causing additional stress"

I fail to see why this is possible - if you are aware of the requirements then you are prepared for the future! You will be saying next that getting back your electricity deposit is causing you stress and that cancelling any bank payments is causing you stress - get behind it - it is normal life and if you prepare for the requirement there is no stress at all.
No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again.

fxtrnc
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun 28 Jun 2015 8:16 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 69 of 168 in Discussion

Post by fxtrnc »

give it time after 6 months then have a go
Will a spec of dirt on a ball of mud floating through the universe make a difference

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 70 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

Thank you for your good wishes Ragged Robin. We haven't had any response yet from Erol who said he was consulting Multimax's legal/accounts dept. We will certainly let you know when we receive a reply.

Waddo, we have had no problems or stress getting back our electricity deposit or cancelling our bank payments. The only problem and stress we have had is that caused by Multimax.

User avatar
waddo
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 4638
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012 7:21 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 71 of 168 in Discussion

Post by waddo »

My post was in response to the post by RR not to your current position. My post remains unchanged regarding RR's worry over stress and simply points out that if you do your homework first then you know what you are heading into. Therefore, nobody who has read the continuing saga of WND versus MM should have any worry over the same thing in the future.

The position of MM has been made plain time and time again on this forum. Any future stress can only be self made.
No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again.

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 72 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Waddo: All life is stressful: some is necessary stress, some is inevitable stress and some is totally unnecessary stress because of the selfishness and/or greed and/or inefficiency of one party to an agreement.

As I said earlier, moving house is generally agreed to be one of the most stressful events of most people's lives (second only to death and divorce!). Moving between countries has additional stresses. Moving because one is forced to through ill health or unfair loss of money ,, is particularly bad and for the elderly ,, infirm, disabled etc. who cannot physically get to Multimax offices the additional unnecesary stress and pain is the last straw to break the camel's back. Do you know, Waldo, what it is to be so exhausted you cant even think straight because of the demands on your time, or not to be able to go where you want because you can walk the distance from where you have had , with difficulty, to park your car!

Preparing for it is not the answer and does not relieve the stress. At the time of renewing their subscriptions most people, I believe, thought that MM would honour their guarantee to to refund unconditionally; they had no reason to suppose MM would impose conditions on the method of repayment and therefore could not prepare. MM make a silly ,, but arguably understandable, mistake in their promotional literature. Instead of acknowledging and putting it right , they have arrogantly ignored the distress of some of their customers and insisted on one form of repayment when others are ready available. It is a source of stress that one has tied oneself to such an arrogant and customer unfriendly company.!

Incidentally, surely the use of cheques is somewhat outdated for such a go-getting firm in a new technology? Most organisations are actually trying to discourage the use of cheques!!!!

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 73 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

Ragged Robin wrote: .. they have arrogantly ignored the distress of some of their customers and insisted on one form of repayment when others are ready available. It is a source of stress that one has tied oneself to such an arrogant and customer unfriendly company.!
At the risk of sounding 'arrogant and customer unfriendly' let me try once more to explain the other side here.

Wanting to cancel your contract with MM early using our refund policy, that no other ISP offers, AND ALSO wanting to have internet access from MM until after you have left the country as well is always going to create problems for someone other than yourself, regardless of how we refund the money.

Leaving aside MM policy on how it refunds customers under its refund policy for just a moment, wanting to have MM internet access up to when you leave the island still creates an issue with regards to how MM can recover it's equipment, in order to be able to process any refund. So yes the customer can ask and friend to take on the burden of going to their house, after the customer has already left the island, so that MM is able to retrieve the equipment, letting MM into the property and letting them recover said equipment but doing so is to basically expect the friend to go to trouble in order to make the customers life easier. Such an arrangement is also fraught with possible problems even assuming that the friend will have the necessary and legal access to the customers property after they have left. Even for a new install for someone who wants to become a customer and pay MM rather than one who wants to leave MM and take money back from MM we quote a 7 working days install window. We can not and do not give customers a specific install day or time. We call the customer on a local number within the 7 days shortly before coming, to establish the customer is there and able to have us come and install. Uninstallation / removal of the equipment is similar. Now however because the customer has left the island we have to call not the customer but the customer friend, having previously made notes on our system as to who the customers friend is and what their number for contacting them is and establish 'can you be at your friends house to let us in and recover our equipment'. If this person does not answer or their phone is off or is unable to do this at this time we then have to try again on another day and so and so on until mutually acceptable time is established. This is all before you even consider how we get the money back to the customer having achieved all this at our expense and the customer's friends inconvenience. So even if we were able and willing to transfer the refund electronically having done all this, wanting to have MM internet access up to the point you leave the island AND ALSO wanting to be refunded for any unused portion left on your contract creates problems, for MM and inevitably also for someone other than the customer themselves. When we made our compromise offer to WND to collect the equipment on the 20th and issue their refund cheque on the 27th, we were not just reducing the time for the standard refund process from 21 days days to 7, we were also committing to uninstall their equipment on a specific day, something we do not do even for NEW customers. We do offer a 'priority install option' for new customer at an additional fee and even then that will only reduce the normal 7 days install window to a specific 2 day install window, not the one day uninstall window we offered at no charge to WND in order to try and help them. One of the things we are reviewing is if we should also offer a paid priority uninstall option but even if we do and even if we find a way to transfer the money back to the customer legally and safely at an admin cost that is reasonable without the customer having to do anything it will STILL be problematic for someone other than the customer themselves if a customer wants MM internet access up to the very point they leave the island and also wants to claim their refund for the unused portion of their contract.

An alternative for someone who is leaving the island would be to prepare an alternative means of internet access to cover the period from when we collect our equipment and process their refund to when they actually leave. For anyone with a local mobile and a smart phone by far the easiest way to do this would be to add 3G data to their mobile phone. This can be done simply by sending a text. For example if you are on turkcell you can add a monthly 500MB of 3G data by simply texting 500 to 1111, at a cost of 22TL or 340 Konturs if you are a pay as you go customer. Once this has been done you can then connect any wifi capable device, laptop or tablet or whatever to your phone as easily and securely as connecting them to the wifi router used with a MM connection. The only real difference between this solution and using MM in your last few weeks on the island (or week in the case of WND) would be you may have to watch less online streaming televisions so as to not use up your 500GB or pay for more 3G data so you can watch Television. In terms of all the email communication you may need to do as part of the stressful process of moving house and country, there would be no difference. In terms of having to make daily maximum bank transfer to avoid the cost of moving money in one single go there would be no difference. In terms of needing to print your airline ticket on the day before you leave the country but not earlier than that there would be no difference. The only compromise involved on the customers part would be watching less live streamed TV, or paying more than 22TL to the mobile company to do so, that is it.

You also continue to insist that an unconditional refund must refer to not just why a customer might seek a refund but also to how they are given that refund, yet you singularly fail to even acknowledge let alone address that such an insistence creates obvious issues that I pointed out earlier here http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 50#p175692 . As far as MM is 'in the wrong' in this regard as far as I am concerned it is because we do not provide full details of the refund policy on the website itself. However those full details have always been available to anyone who asks us for them, customer or not, at any time and they have been and were given to WND when they asked for them, with no 'retroactive changing' of them as we have been accused of. This does not mean they should not also be on the website, they should be and this will be addressed in due course in light of all this. The only reason it has not already been addressed is because we are now reviewing and looking at all possible ways forwards and even having to consider as part of that discussion removing this industry leading and unique offer entirely, though this is not a preferred way forward for us and would be detrimental to ourselves and our customers.

You also keep raising the issue of 'how can someone who is disabled come and collect their refund cheque' yet this is simply not the issue in this case. The issue here at it's core is how to square a customers desire to have continued MM service up to the point they leave the island and get a refund for their unused portion of their contract with our need to retrieve our equipment before being able to provide a refund, which in this case is aggravated by our refund policy of a cheque handed in person to the named account holder but not solely about that issue alone. If you RR were to want to end your MM service early but the problem was you could not get to our office to collect the cheque once it was ready, then we could and almost certainly would compromise in such a case, in light of the disability, and offer to have a MM employee bring the cheque to you, provided you did not also insist this was done immediately and at a time and convenience that suited only you and start shouting 'unconditional' at us if we suggested we do it when we next have someone visiting your area. So this issue of 'how would I collect my cheque' is not something you should stress over , provided you would be willing to work in a spirit of co-operation and compromise with us and not just demand that things be done in ways that suit only yourself with no regard for our requirements and duty to those customers who are staying with us.

In terms of stress it is not just customers and / or those that are elderly, infirm or disabled that experience stress. MM staff are also subject to stressful situations and stress as well, myself included. I am not actually just some monolithic faceless mega corporation that is the cause of the ever increasing gap between the richest and poorest in our society but am a real living and breathing human being with all the frailties and failings that entails. This whole situation has also been and continues to be stressful for me as well and even more so because of the inherent inequality in regards to my position as an employee vs WND's as a customer. To date I have not relayed my experience and perspective on this specific situation except in the broadest generic terms, unlike the customer who feels free to relay here their own subjective one sided version of what they were told by MM whilst excluding other things they were told by MM as suits their need. Well as a human being with all the frailties and failings that entails who if pricked does indeed bleed and myself feeling stressed and under what I consider to be continued provocation and pressure I will now be giving my side of the story. Not that my side is 'right' or that everyone must see things my way but as a matter of fairness, to both me as a living breathing person and to MM as a company.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 74 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

My personal account and perspective of trying to deal with this issue to date. One side of a story that like all stories has more than one side or perspective. No claims that my preservative is any more right or valid than anyone else's. It is just my perspective and memory of what has occurred to date, nothing more and nothing less.

I first became aware of this issue whilst browsing the forum, on the Monday the original post was made. Monday is technically a 'non working' day for me, as I only work for MM on a part time basis with my 'official' working days being Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The original post concerned me for a couple of reasons. Firstly it seemed to me that the "Could we fly 2000 miles back to collect the refund cheque and deposit it in our bank account? No" was under the 'section' "we were told [by MM]". I later came to realise that it was not the intention of WND to say MM told them this but this is an example of how easy it is for the intent of a post to be different from how it is viewed by someone reading it. That aside although the description of what was our policy on refunds was was correct in terms of taking up to 21 days to complete and that we could not transfer the refund electronically and that we provide the refund in the form of a cheque to the named account holder to be handed over to them in person, I was concerned that it seemed from this post that the customer was told 'this is the process that is it, goodbye'.

So I contacted the office and spoke to the MM staff member that had dealt with WNDs when they had come to the office to enquire as to the refund. It was this staff member that made it clear to me that the customer had not been told by us that they could not come back to Cyprus and collect the cheque in person and that I was probably just reading their post incorrectly and what they meant is it was not practical for them to do so. They also informed me that the customer had been told that whilst this was the standard procedure they would refer the issue to management in light of the customer's situation and that we would get back to them following this, something that is missing from WND's original post.

So the issue had been referred to management already to see if there was something we could do outside of our standard procedure to help the customers, but before we had any chance to do that and get back to the customer WND had posted their original post whilst not mentioning that this was happening.

I then 'chased up' management, via a third party as I do not speak Turkish and the management person I needed to refer to did not speak English to a sufficient level for such an issue, suggesting two possible ways forward. One being that we consider changing the normal procedure so that we agree to collect the equipment on a preset day, something we do not even do for new customer joining us even if they pay for 'priority install' suggesting the 20th and commit to having the cheque ready by the 27th, thus reducing the time the customer would be without MM internet from 21 days to 7. I also suggested another possible way forward would be to agree to make an exception to our normal procedures and allow for the cheque to be collected by a third party nominated by the customer and I would then try and work out with them the details of how and when we could collect our equipment from them.

Management then came back, again via a third person, confirming that option one was doable but that option two was not as it is not actual legal to hand a cheque written to a person to a third party. As it turns out, as Kemal has subsequently said, this could be legally done with a correctly written and notarised power of attorney, as such a person IS the legal equivalent of the named person, provided the POA is itself legally correct for this purpose but at this stage POA had not even occurred to myself or I suspect management.

So I rang the customer, speaking to a gentleman and made the offer of reducing the processing time to one week and setting the day for collection to a specific day. They then explained that this was problematic for them as they would need to print off their ticket / boarding pass (do not recall which) on the 27th. To which I suggested that if they could not do that at a friends / neighbours house then they would be more than welcome to do so at my house or possibly the MM office on the 27th though I would have to check re the office offer to be sure if that was possible. They then explained that as well as this they also needed to do daily bank transfers as doing this daily up to the maximum allowed was more cost effective than doing a single lump sum transfer. Fair enough. So I then suggested that perhaps they could do this in their final week from a friends / neighbours or even an internet cafe / public wifi hotspot, though I did explain that doing so did have some increased 'risk' and that if they did they should do so using their own laptop rather than a third party machine as this would minimise any such risk though not remove it entirely. To which they replied that they did not really have any suitable neighbours and did not really want to do it from a public wifi hotspot. Fair enough. So then I suggested that they could perhaps add some 3G data to their existing mobile service and that if they had a smart phone they would not need to buy a 'dongle' to do this, establishing they did have a suitable phone and local sim. I also offered to help should they add such 3G data but run into any problems connecting their laptop to it. The customer then asked if such a solution would still allow them to watch streaming TV in their last week on the island. I explained that it could be used to do such but that doing so would quickly eat up the data on a 3G contract giving a ball park figure for how much data TV viewing would use. I also suggested that the customer could download content whilst they still had their MM connection ready for the week in which they would be only on 3G or that I could even myself provide them with downloaded video content to cover them for this period. At this point the gentleman said he would investigate this possibility and get back to me. From my call log on my phone this call was 21 minutes long

So at this point I was waiting to hear back from the customer. However before hearing back from them they again posted on the forum in response to another person suggestion that they 'would suggest a post dated cheque to MM'. This surprised me a bit as I was at that pointing waiting to hear back from them re the suitability of using 3G for the final week.

I then sometime later got a PM asking me to confirm what my personal phone number was. I replied to this and also called the customer again, assuming that they wanted to speak to me and probably about the 'post dated cheque' option. So I called the customer again, this time speaking to a lady. I explained that a 'post dated cheque' was not a viable solution from our perspective as it would involve us have to issue the refund before we were able to collect our equipment and check it and that whilst we could 'stop' the cheque in the event that we were unable to recover the equipment, this involved additional cost both direct and in terms of admin time to do so. As it turns out it is also technically illegal to post date cheques though I was not aware of that at this time. I then enquired if they had investigated the 3G data for the last week option and was told that it was not a viable solution for them. When I asked why , I was told 'because why should we (get and use 3G data for their last week on the island)', we have paid for the MM service. When I suggested that the reason why they should consider this was because it would allow them to receive their refund I was told it was not viable because such a solution would not allow them to watch streaming TV in their final week. I again suggested they could download content whilst they had the MM connection or that I could even provide them with such I was again met with 'but why should we, we have paid for a MM connection'. I also have a memory that in this conversation I talked about compromise and give and take and how it felt from my perspective like they were to a degree just bullying MM until they got a solution that was to their liking, even if that was not their intent. The customer requested that I go back to management and request they come up with another solution that would be acceptable to them. I said I would do this whilst stressing that in my personal view doing such was unlikely to result in them getting a solution they were totally happy with. From my call log on the phone this call was 26 minutes long.

At this point I am feeling somewhat 'stressed'. It is also at this point that I came up with a possible alternate solution, which would be for the customer to transfer their account to a willing third party, and they would use their MM connection until they left the island even though they would not be the person named on the contract and the person to whom the account had been transferred to would then activate the refund policy, provide us with access to the property so we could recover our equipment, and then come and collect a cheque made out to them in their name, bank this and then pass this money onto WND. However given what had already occurred to date this time I decided to put this to the customer first, before going back to management, for it seemed to me that if this was not acceptable to the customer there was no point in passing it back to management yet again. So I rang the customer again, stressing that I had not yet passed this suggestion to management and that I was first establishing if it was acceptable to the customer before doing so. I also explained that this way forward would require the customer to come to the office along with the willing third party and explained that the willing third party would have to understand and accept that they would become the 'legal party' to the contract and thus responsible for any use that the connection was put to as well as the contractual obligations in regards to the equipment itself. The customer indicated that this would be an acceptable solution to them and they believed they could find such a willing third party so I said I would in that case pass the suggestion on to management.

So I once again contacted management, this time a different person that did speak English well and was aware of what had occurred to date. At this point I was told that MM had made our offer of compromise to our standard procedure to try and accommodate this customers specific needs , all be it one that also required some compromise from the customer as well and that suggesting convoluted means that increased the admin work and cost (as well as requiring time and effort on part of both the customer and even more on their willing third party) by which the customer could 'game' our processes in order to achieve a solution that was acceptable to them was 'missing the point', which was to try and find a viable solution and compromise that required as minimal extra admin work and cost on our part as possible vs our standard procedure, not find ways that increased such. This did little to reduce my stress levels given that I had already 'floated' this idea to the customers but I have come to the personal view that in this response management was entirely correct, for whilst we have and accept we have a duty to customers leaving us and to stand by our refund offer, we also have a duty to our customers that are NOT leaving us. A duty to ensure that our costs in terms of direct costs and in terms of admin time costs needed and taken are kept to a minimum. I said I would contact the customer and let them know that management's position was that MM had made what they considered a reasonable compromise with regards to the refund policy and that was it.

So I called the customer again and relayed this latest information to them, trying my best to explain management's position. I think I said something along the lines of 'I have now been 'told of'f by management by continuing to spend time and effort on this when what MM considered was a reasonable compromise offer had already been agreed by management and offered to the customer. This call was considerably shorter than the two previous ones and ended with the customer making it clear they were not happy and they would be making further posts on the kibkom forum to that effect, which I agreed was their choice and right but that I had done my best to help them and this is where we currently were and I could see little more that I could do to help.

At this point I am feeling very stressed and like 'piggy in the middle'.

WND made various posts on the forum at one point characterising the above exchange in their post here http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 96#p175674 and stating that it was they that had suggested to MM the transferring the account to a willing third party and that we 'would have none of it' even though this was not actually the case. I did PM WND at this point suggesting that "That is not exactly true though is it ? " as I am human, though I was still doing my utmost at this point in time to keep my perspectives / views on our conversations out of the public areas of the forum. To date I have received no reply to this PM.

So far all quite stressful for me and no doubt others involved both managment and the customers as well as costly in terms of time spent. However at this point I did think that it was now 'out of my hands' and that thinking that did reduce my stress level somewhat. I did make a couple more posts to the thread after this, again trying to deal with general issues that were being raised.

Then at 4:48 pm on friday 10th turtle made a suggestion here http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 50#p175721 that there were in fact two separate contracts, the currently running one and the future paid in advance one and asked if WND could not just terminate the later and get a refund for it, whilst keeping the form running, thus removing MM need to collect our equipment before issuing the refund. At 10:12pm that same Friday Kemal responded to this question with this post http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 50#p175753. This was and is simply 'uncharted water' for MM. This 'question' and situation had never arisen before where by a customer sought refund for a paid for future contract (or extension to an existing running contract if that is what it is) with us whilst maintaining an existing running contract. Kemal said he would refer to legal and accounts departments in MM. Even if legal / accounts were to deem the future contract a separate one and not an extension of existing one and agree that this future contract could be refunded and within the timescales needed by WND, there still remains the issue of when and how we could recover our equipment when the current running contract expires, given that WNDS will have vacated the property and left the island by that point.

On Sunday 12th of Feb at 9.12am I recieved a PM via kibkom from WND requesting that they would like to cancel their future contract (or is it their future extension to their existing contract?) under the terms of our refund policy and they looked forward to reciveing a full refund for this (but not the currently running existing contract) within the next 14 days.

My stress levels increase once more as I am dragged back into the situation, having thought that I was 'out of it'. (images of Al Pacino in the Godfather III flash into my head)

First thing on Monday, 7am, I reply to WND PM to me above saying that "I am awaiting instruction from legal/accounts as to if we can do this or not, as per kbasat's post from Friday last at 10pm"

On Tuesday 14th WND posts publicaly here http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 50#p175935 that they have not "had any response yet from Erol who said he was consulting Multimax's legal/accounts dept." Stress levels rising yet again. I had not said I would be contacting accounts and legal over this issue, it was Kemal who said that and I am just awaiting to hear from them should they wish me to relay this to the customer. It has so far only been two working days since the 'question' was asked by turtle and Kemal said he would refer it and WND requested such a refund within 14 days via PM here to me. Given how unprecedented this question is and given what has happened already to date and given I was not the person who referred this question to accounts / legal in the first place and given my relative position within the company vs that of the person who had referred it, I do not feel in a position yet to 'chase up' accounts / legal.

That pretty much brings things up to date, as far as my perspective and viewpoint on things so far and my own personal stress levels. I leave it to others to make their own choices how much of the stress I have experienced and am still experiencing is 'necessary stress' and how much of it could be considered as "totally unnecessary stress because of the selfishness and/or greed and/or inefficiency of one party to an agreement." as RR has put it.

Throughout this whole thing a small subset of people have been throwing accusation around aimed at myself and MM that to me feel far from fair or just and are in fact offensive on so many levels. If I say that these same people take it as MM being aggressive towards it customers so dammed if I do and dammed if I do not. To paraphrase from memory as it it is now late / early from the generic 'all companies in North Cyprus are dishonest' to the 'MM does not care about people with disabilities' to accusations that our refund policy that has benefited customers to date is 'worthless' to direct accusations (from WND neighbour as it turns out) that MM is deliberately misleading and deceitful and more besides.

I would also like to stress that even now I am far from certain that posting the above is the 'right thing to do' or not. I have so far been strenuously trying to not do so for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day I am only human and I do sometimes makes decisions that are no the right or best ones and this may well be one of those. I have now been up all night addressing this, though at least that has been on my own personal time and not on MM's (meaning in effect at least this time has not been at the ultimate 'expense' of those customers that are not leaving us) and thus may not be making the best judgements but I am going to post this none the less.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 75 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

Erol we are sorry you have been up all night and that you are stressed. We can empathize with you as we too are under a lot of stress - the inevitable stress which occurs whenever you move, We were also not aware that you only work part-time for Multimax.

It seems a reasonable solution to us for Multimax to refund the cancelled policy ( which was not scheduled to come into effect until mid-April) in full.

Equipment can be collected on the morning of the 28th February before 12 noon. We do not want a refund of the remaining six weeks of this contract.

This seems a reasonable compromise for both parties.

snd1966
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2012 3:26 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 76 of 168 in Discussion

Post by snd1966 »

I have been following this post with great interest but from refraining from adding.
Now I think I have got my head around it
Wnd would like the internet to the end of February, when he leaves - should be able to book the day and time but at additional cost as he requires a specific service which nobody could offer ad-hoc. Too many things can go wrong to be able to offer this service without additional cost. Mm would have to have a back up in place in case the team allocated to carry out this task couldn't.
Mm need to arrange a time and day to remove the equipment while he is still in residence. - understandable, they are dealing with the person who signed the contract.
Wnd requires his outstanding balance returned - perfectly acceptable
Mm - need to check the equipment is working, which I would of thought they do an onsite confirmation before they remove it plus a more detailed report at the office - can thoroughly understand
Mm - refund of monies is a bit too severe , ok I understand they can not spend days going around customers banks paying in chequers but again they should have a form the customer can fill in for a third party to collect on the understanding they bring their passport and copy.

My personal feelings is MM have fallen like most service companies, they want to helpful, but are afraid to charge for services away from their normal procedure as like most people who offer a service they are worried it will offend but cause more upset by refusing. There is no such word as can't but people have to accept you have to pay for things outside the normal service but unfortunately here too many people have been promised the world but end up out of pocket therefore always cautious .

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 77 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

And finally I am going to a post a 'so where are we now' summary. Again maybe not the best judgement call I have ever made and probably not a call I should make at all having been up all night and flagging but as I say I am human and I make mistakes and bad judgement calls and maybe this is such.

The option of reducing the turn around for a refund and MM committing to arrange the install on a single specific day, with the customer using 3G based internet to cover them for their final 7 days in Cyprus remains an options. I am still of the personal opinion that this is in fact both a fair compromise to both parties and what is more the most sensible and practical way to proceed , if you take in to account the total time and effort and cost involved in the alternatives, not just to MM and WND but also to any 'willing third party'. That is my personal view

POA is a technically possible way forward but does carry risks that the POA turns out to be not sufficient / correct and it involves what seems to me an inordinate amount of effort and cost for both WND and for the person named as POA in this regard compared with the first option. That is my person view.

Maybe I should not be saying this and maybe saying it will get me into trouble with MM but I am gonna say it anyway. The option to transfer the account to a third party is 'procedurally' possible' but given what has occurred to date I just do not know if it is now 'legally' possible for MM to knowingly transfer an account into the name of a person they KNOW will not be the actual person using that account. Management did not explicitly tell me this was not possible, they told me that had I lost sight of the objective and should not be going down such routes in such a situation as this and that I should tell WND that we had made our compromise offer re the refund and not suggest to them ways they could procedurally 'bypass' our normal practices to their benefit and our 'cost'. Certainly if the trail of events had been WND asked us for refund, discovered that the refund policy was problematic for them and had just come in a week later to say 'we would like to transfer our account to Mr Third Person here, without us being made explicitly aware that actually Mr Third Person was not taking over the account and would not be the person using the account, this solution would have 'worked'. If the issue had not been immediately 'made public' on the forums, before we even had had a chance to refer it to management and get their answer it is well within the realms of possibility that I may have myself suggested 'in private' and 'unofficially' that doing this might actually be the best way forward for the customer, if not MM itself or our customers that remained with us or the named third person for that matter. I do not know, maybe I would have , maybe I would not and hindsight is as they say 20:20.

The 'is the future contract a separate contract to the existing one and if it is could that contract be canceled under our refund policy whilst the current one remains active' question is still with accounts / legal who are considering it and the implications of it. They have so far had two working days to deal with this issue but believe it or not they actually have considerable amounts of 'routine' work to do as well during a working day most of which concerns customers that are not leaving us. Even if it is deemed this is a possible solution there STILL remains the issue of when and how we are to collect our equipment when the current running contract expires.

That is 'where we are so far'.

To WND I would say please do understand that if you are expecting a response from me personally today re this latest issue that has been referred to legal / accounting then you are probably going to be disappointed because

A - today is not a 'working day' for me
B - I need to go and get some sleep.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 78 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

WotNoDeeds wrote:It seems a reasonable solution to us for Multimax to refund the cancelled policy ( which was not scheduled to come into effect until mid-April) in full.
This has been referred to our legal / accounts department because they are actually the qualified people to be able to determine if this is legal and what the ramifications of doing this are and what if any ongoing liabilities that doing it for you places on MM with regards to their other customers going forward. As I say I have not yet chased them up about this and hope I have explained why I feel unable to do so at this point in time. Please do bear with us a little longer on in this regard.
WotNoDeeds wrote:Equipment can be collected on the morning of the 28th February before 12 noon.
Please understand that from experience I know this is a extremely small window in which to accomplish this, not only a single pre set day but a single pre set day before 12 noon. The reason why we do not offer such windows, even to new customers and even if they pay extra for a 'priority install' is that long and hard experience has shown us otherwise. If on the morning concerned some base station or major link link fails for some unforeseen reason, we have to send engineers that have previously been scheduled to do installs for new customers or uninstalls for leaving ones to deal with this before individual installs. In fact we always try and prioritise fixing an existing customers service over installing new customers. If an engineers vehicle does not start on that morning then an engineer scheduled to do new installs and other work will have to forgo those to do this uninstall. If an engineer or more is sick or ill on that specific day, likewise. We need to be fair to you as a customer but we also need to be fair to all our other customers as well. Agreeing to do the uninstall on a single specific day to suit your needs was and is as far as we can go to try and be fair to you whilst also being as fair to our other customers as well. Reducing this single day to a single 'no second chance' half day is beyond what we can do.
WotNoDeeds wrote:We do not want a refund of the remaining six weeks of this contract.This seems a reasonable compromise for both parties.
Whilst I do appreciate this compromise on your part please understand that you compromising on being willing to forgoe a refund of six weeks of unused service to secure one years worth of refund is a compromise that really just does not help us as far as our 'needs' go. From our perspective it is not about the money per se and that the solution we have already offered as a compromise would refund you both the six weeks and the full year.

Anyway sorry now I really must go get some sleep.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 79 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

Unbelievable.
Erol:
Assuming we haven't been invaded by aliens, Cyprus hasn't suffered a massive earthquake and all Multimax's customers haven't called you out simultaneously, perhaps you could come and collect your equipment on the 28th. We can delay our departure until 3pm, so collection between 9-3 would surely be achievable?

User avatar
waddo
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 4638
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012 7:21 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 80 of 168 in Discussion

Post by waddo »

RR,

"Do you know, Waldo, what it is to be so exhausted you cant even think straight because of the demands on your time, or not to be able to go where you want because you can walk the distance from where you have had , with difficulty, to park your car!"

You have asked "Waldo" two question here - permit me to answer on behalf him/her. I spent 25 years in the military - the answer to your first part is yes, I have, on many occasions and in many parts of the world, been so exhausted that I could not think straight because of the demands on my time. I am also fully aware of "Stress" and how it can affect people. The answer to your second part is that if I was so exhausted and had so much difficulty in parking my vehicle, then I should not have been driving in the first place as my level of fitness simply put others lives at risk. Being a "Responsible" person I would not do this.

"Responsibility" that is a thing that appears to have fallen from use over the years, these days it seems that everyone else is "Responsible" but never the person with the problem or the complaint. It has become far easier for people to point fingers and blame - The RoC is a prime example - rather than accept responsibility for their part in the problem and seek to reach an amicable agreement.

Having watched with interest the foot stamping on this thread my support is for Erol who is in an untenable situation, trapped between a rock and a hard place, between management and customer and it appears without a friend in the world. However, now we all know the procedure (currently) in place to effect the unconditional refund policy, so nobody should suffer stress in the future. Erol, please remember that the customer is always right, but not always the customer, the sun will shine again tomorrow and I hope you slept well last night.
No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again.

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 81 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Waddo : I am sorry I got your name wrong. I too am suffering from stress and lack of sleep, and it is a rather minor matter in the circs and certainly does not excuse the sheer nastiness of your post.

I am perfectly capable of driving and sufficienctly "responsible" not to drive when I am too tired and stressed . What I have problems with is walking, and the problem with parking is that there is very little official provision here for disabled drivers and firms like Multimax (and I am not suggesting they are the only one) do no take into account people with difficulties when they insist on customers coming to them! It i the sheer selfishness of other drivers, particularly those who need not only to drive unnecessarily vehicles as if they were offensive weapons, but park in a manner to take up even more spaces than they need who make driving a nightmare and parking near enough to where I need to go impossible. And the Brits are as bad as everyone else.

In my view it is the poor customer who in between rock and a hard place and the general attitude the world over is that the "customer is always wrong" and I am sorry that Multimax is adopting a position that is far from the average Turkish Cypriot business

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 82 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

Erol: I am sorry you ae suffering such stress, and have been put in such an unenviable position between Management and the Customer! I have had a lot of experience of that myself: but do also bear in mind the stress of those who are unable to work and are struggling on a pension to cope with ever increasing prices and shocks likeMMs price increase last Dec. and the potential loss of the refund they thought was guaranteed. I have already explained that I TRY never to attack an individual on this Board (unless they attack me first!) and certainly none of my posts have beeen aimed at your personally, although I do think MM as a company are behaving in a non customer friendly manner.

THe issue seems to me to be:

1. The initial problem that MMS "Guarantee" is , let us say, ambiguous. Obviously their priority should be to amend this. I wish I was younger and less out of touch and had a work permit, then I could offer to draft a replacement myself!

2. What to do about the existing situation (what no deeds) . It seems there is now a reasonable compromise on the table and I hope it will be accepted.

3. What to do about new customers. A revised "guarantee" will ensure that no one signs up with false expectations. It may loose one of two customers but maybe they are the type you would not want anyway.

4. What to do about existing customers who had signed up depending on the guarantee. I await MMs suggestions with interest

Generally it does seem to me that the problems i s is that there is a commercial risk here , in that MM cannot meet the customers' needs without taking some risk. Surely that is the whole point of being in commerce - you take the risks to benefit from the profits, but pass them on to the paying customer. It seems to me that MM could minimise the risks by better organsiation and management.

5. MM does not give adequate considerable to disabled customers and others who may have serious reasons for being unable to visit their offices.

6. MM are proposing alternative suggestions which seem to me technically problematical.

However 5 and6 will go off topic so I will start separate threads.

I STILL do no understand why a high tech. company like Multimax, working in a country like this where a lot of customers are based in another country cannot manage some form of internet transfer, but has to revert to the old fashioned cheque. Can someone please enlighten me.

User avatar
Soner
Kibkom
Kibkom
Posts: 5155
Joined: Tue 03 Apr 2012 10:51 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 83 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Soner »

Cor Blimey! As us Londoner's would put it.

I have just read this entire thread, and cannot make any "common-sense" of it all, totally beyond me, sorry...

WND - The initial offer made to you by Erol seems above and beyond reasonable. Why waste your time arguing on a forum (eventhough it is producing a good number of hits for me ) trying to make the term "unconditional refund" suit your leaving plans, when you could be moving forward with a reasonable plan to get your cheque back in time? Get the ball rolling, before you know it, it will be time to leave. You had been promised a refund should you decide to leave MM, no questions asked, no reason needed, you simply get any money back for unused service on return of equipment. I presume when contract was signed there was no mention of time span, nor whether equipment needed to be collect before refund payments made; sometimes we have to factor these in or simply ask questions at the time. You are in a foreign country and lucky the contract was written in English and not in Turkish, not that many read through all the small print of such long contracts anyway. If in doubt just put it all down to misinterpretation due to language that has been lost in translation.

I believe MM have explained their side of the story clearly and are not out to be deceitful. From what I have seen in the past, is that they own up to their mistakes and try their best to rectify any problems - but as usual one cannot please everybody, just not possible no matter how hard one tries. WND will get his refund unconditionally - but there are other aspects/procedures to take into consideration. Similar issue may not occur in UK mainly due to sophisticated banking system there, in North Cyprus the banking system is all over the place. I continually pull my hair out in disbelief with the number of walls I walk into with just wanting to tranfer-in or out, pay cheques in or simply move money about, it's utter madness, but we simply put up with it as we come here under the understanding that North Cyprus has a lot to offer, warts included.

No doubt many will not agree with me, and say I am defending a Sacred Cow, but hey, life is too short to worry about what others think. Life is too short to be worrying about refund procedures and getting all concerned stressed over it. Maybe it's because I am a Londoner.....

WND - Good luck with your move, hope things pan out well.
MM - wouldn't bother worrying about changing your terms - can't see anything wrong there. Even if you had it all in Turkish, people would still sign up.

My favourite word for this week is: Compromise
Support businesses that are supporting the Kibkom Forum - At least contact them for a quote.
This forum cannot exist without the support of both member and advertiser.
Don't forget to mention Kibkom!

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2571
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 84 of 168 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

My thoughts.

Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution..

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

jofra
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1568
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2014 10:19 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 85 of 168 in Discussion

Post by jofra »

And without taking sides in this specific case, as most of those who have actually worked "behind the counter" will confirm, one version is "the customer is always right"; the other version is "the customer is often a right *&%@!^*"......
....and that is why I often have problems being forceful enough even if it's me that's in the right...
What do I mean????? I'm always in the right!!!

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 86 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

We read with interest the above comments. Thank you for your good wishes Soner. Thank you too, Ragged Robin for your constructive observations and suggestions.
We wrote to Erol four days ago and are waiting to hear from him He is consulting Multimax's legal/accounts Dept, as to whether they will issue a full refund on the cancelled contract due to start mid-April 2017. We paid 1299 TL upfront for this in December 2016. We did so because Multimax said the prices would be increased by 20% in the New Year and by paying early we could pay the pre-increase price and thus save money. As it happens the increase didn't come into force so, in a sense, we paid upfront for no advantage. The only advantage was to Multimax who have had the use of our money for four months. We believed that there was no risk in paying early because Multimax advertised a no-quibble unconditional refund. We believe we are due a full refund. An unconditional refund should mean just that. We hope Multimax will prove themselves an honourable Company and give us the refund to which we are entitled.
Multimax Gaurantee.jpg

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 87 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

WotNoDeeds wrote: We believed that there was no risk in paying early because Multimax advertised a no-quibble unconditional refund. We believe we are due a full refund. An unconditional refund should mean just that.
And if you were willing to use an alternative 3G based internet connection for your last week on the Island, something that would take minutes to set up and cost 22TL , you could have a full refund and none of this would have been necessary.

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 88 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

I give up. It does not matter what language you use,, if people are determined to swear black is white you will get nowhere. I have quite a lot of experience of contract wording, but to double check my memory I not only looked up both the normal and legal definitions of "condition" and "without condition" (something few others on this board appear to bother to do, as they prefer to make up their own definitions) and then I translated it into Turkish and then translated back to counter check, and I can see no reason for a misunderstanding arising here. Quite simply "without condition" means exactly what it says: there are no conditions of any type, if you need/wish to place on on any aspect of the transaction you have to add a proviso. If Multimax had admitted they made a mistake and attempted to correct it, and tried to help their customer instead of insisting on their own outdated and unworkable conditions all this would now be unnecessary.

As it is sick people who neeed to return to the UK and are already finding the process extemely debilitating now have another unnecessary hurdle to jump.

Is is ethical for the owner and the only active moderator to jump in at this stage in support of anadvertiser? I would feel more confident posting here if they demonstrated their impartiality, but a quick look through the list of topics show the priorities.
I give up.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 89 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

Ragged Robin wrote:If Multimax had admitted they made a mistake and attempted to correct it,
We have and do admit that the details of the procedure for claiming a refund should be available on our website along with the offer itself, rather than just available on request as has been the case to date. We will be correcting this omission in light of this experience in due course, as we have already repeatedly stated here.
Ragged Robin wrote:and tried to help their customer
We have tried to help this customer, offering to collect our equipment so a refund can be issued, in a way that is is beyond that which we offer even to new customers joining us, even those willing to pay extra for priority installation as well as shortening the turn around from this collection to the issuing of the refund cheque by 2/3rds of the normal turn around time.
Ragged Robin wrote:instead of insisting on their own outdated and unworkable conditions all this would now be unnecessary.
The need or requirement or condition if you prefer for Multimax to collect it's equipment before being able to process and provide a refund is neither outdated or unworkable. It is inevitable and to me obvious.
Ragged Robin wrote: in support of anadvertiser?
Multimax does not advertise on this forum and has not done so for some considerable period of time now.
Ragged Robin wrote:I give up.
If only I had an option and choice to just 'give up', {sigh}

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 90 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

in our opinion Multimax's "solution" was not "above and beyond reasonable" - just the opposite, in fact, and that is why we have "wasted our time" posting on this forum. Posters are entitled to post their opinions on Kibkom but, at the end of the day this isn't a verbal contest with winners and losers and people taking sides. This is about us trying to get back a refund to which we are legally entitled. We wanted to make other kibkomers, many of whom are Multimax subscribers, aware of our problem and difficulties in getting a refund from Muktimax.

We still await a reply from Erol who is consulting Multimax's legal department.

User avatar
Soner
Kibkom
Kibkom
Posts: 5155
Joined: Tue 03 Apr 2012 10:51 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 91 of 168 in Discussion

Post by Soner »

This could of all have been dealt with privately and not on the forum. More time should have been given for said company to come up with a solution before trying to put them down publicly in hope that the pressure will swing any final decision made. MM are a reputable company and do go out of their way to solve any issue. I say this as can see from past threads they are amongst only a few big businesses in TRNC that have the decency to have some form of customer care. BTW, I have no business connection with MM nor are they advertising on Kibkom.

WND - keep calm, do not stress, if told that their Legal Dept are looking into your case, then I am confident all should end well. Just give them some time. It does not help making public problems/misunderstandings caused due to conflicting interpretation of contractual wording, give them a chance to rectify any issues before attempting to damage their business.

RR - I am also human and do have my personal opinions, which others may not agree with, which is fine by me as I too have the option not to agree with other peoples opinions. As for being impartial I do try my best most of the time. I normally try not to enter into any debate on the forum as much as possible, but will step in if I think a company or person is being attacked. This has not happened yet, but with the many members jumping in, for and against, is from past experience destined to cause problems on the thread further down the line. As said, this issue should have been handled solely and directly between WND and MM, especially if company said that they are looking into the issue and their legal procedures.

It looks like there was a miscommunication in the first place, where WND wanted refund and use of the internet upto day of leaving, but did not indicate that he only wanted refund for early renewal part of contract. However, there still remains the issue of collecting equipment on last day, which can end up as a problem for MM should any unforeseen circumstances occur on the day of collection. Hence, I say there must be some form of compromise from both parties.

What makes me sad is that many want things to work the way they do, in the TRNC, as in the UK. I wish the TRNC stayed the way it was 20 years ago (but with internet added ofcourse). However, change happens and we all just have to go along with it. Gone are the days when a handshake meant more than a written contract.

As for PiD's input.... what can I say. Sometimes we need a little bit of humour in our lives, it does not hurt.
Support businesses that are supporting the Kibkom Forum - At least contact them for a quote.
This forum cannot exist without the support of both member and advertiser.
Don't forget to mention Kibkom!

User avatar
waddo
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 4638
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012 7:21 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 92 of 168 in Discussion

Post by waddo »

"Waddo : I am sorry I got your name wrong. I too am suffering from stress and lack of sleep, and it is a rather minor matter in the circs and certainly does not excuse the sheer nastiness of your post."

Please point out where my post has included "sheer nastiness"? You asked a two part question, I gave an answer to both parts.
Part one regarding tiredness I answered factually and without malice.
Part two regarding driving/parking I appear to have confused the issues of stress, exhaustion and walking ability, this has obviously touched a raw nerve with you and for that I apologise without reservation.
However, in my defence, I had seen no mention that you were in fact a disabled driver and with that new information before me, I must agree with you that there is insufficient "official" or "nonofficial" disabled parking facilities within TRNC as a whole. Further, what facilities are available are generally taken up by people who lack "responsibility" and simply ignore the needs of others. The world has indeed become a selfish place!!

Returning to the matter of WND V MM, I take the point of WND regarding poorly worded advertising but feel that Erol is constricted by his management and that he has done everything possible to provide a realistic resolution to the problem. This has been found unacceptable to WND who remains solid in his/her desire to achieve a win at all costs. The current peace process seems to have been a model for this minor problem - there is a solution offered but it will never be enough to secure peace. Sad. I agree with Soner, compromise is the word of the week.
No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 93 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

So there can be no confusion or doubt over this let me state as plainly and clearly as I can.

The desire to have internet access from MM up to the very day a person is leaving the TRNC and to also be able to claim a refund for unused service past that date is a desire that MM does not, will not and can not reasonably meet. Multimax apologises unreservedly for anything it may have done that has led anyone to think that such is possible.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 94 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

The posters who are so keen to praise Multimax might not be so keen to do so if it were their money that was being withheld. We feel badly let down by Multimax and can only speak from our own experience. We went in person to the Multimax office and had a cordial but brief conversation with a staff member there who, once she knew we wanted a refund couldn't wait to get us out of the door. She seemed embarrassed by Multimax's policy and said someone would contact us. When no-one did, we posted on Kibkom to see if anyone else had encountered a similar problem.

We are not asking for an instant refund.The renewal of the contract doesn't commence until mid-April, some six weeks in the future, by which time Multimax will have had their equipment back and had ample time to check it. The problem then arises over the method of repayment of any refund. Multimax will only refund in person to the subscriber by cheque meaning that it is virtually impossible for many subscribers to get the said refund - they may not have a bank account - they may not physically be able to go to Multimax's office because of disability - they may no longer be in the TRNC etc etc All other options for getting round this problem, suggested by us and other posters on the forum have been rejected by Multimax, so we're in a catch 22 situation. At the end of the day we don't get our refund and Multimax hangs on to our money. So much for their unconditional money back refund and 100% customer guarantee policy.

We look forward to hearing from their legal department.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 95 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

WotNoDeeds wrote:We are not asking for an instant refund.The renewal of the contract doesn't commence until mid-April, some six weeks in the future, by which time Multimax will have had their equipment back and had ample time to check it. The problem then arises over the method of repayment of any refund.
My understanding is that Multimax can collect their equipment, provided we do so on a singular day of your choice before 3pm, the day I understand you are leaving the TRNC, with no possibility of trying again if for unforeseeable circumstances we are unable to do so on this singular day and time limit. Which means provided Multimax is willing to prioritises and place your wants as a customer that is leaving us ahead and above those of our customers who are not leaving us and are awaiting engineers to fix faults and problems or waiting for installation. From MM's perspective this is also part of the problem along with the method of refunding. I am of the view that if you were willing to compromise on this part of the problem, allowing us to come and collect the equipment before this singular day / time then the problem of method of repayment would diminish or disappear entirely.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 96 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

At 19.25 on the 27th February, twenty-four hours before our flight, we need to do an online check-in and print off our boarding cards, so really need the internet until this time.
How about if we un-install the equipment early on the morning of the 28th and fetch it to your office?
Last edited by WotNoDeeds on Thu 16 Feb 2017 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 97 of 168 in Discussion

Post by erol »

WotNoDeeds wrote: and said someone would contact us.
This was I believe at around 10:25am on Monday 6th Feb 2017
WotNoDeeds wrote: When no-one did, we posted on Kibkom to see if anyone else had encountered a similar problem.
This was at 11:31am on Monday 6th Feb 2017 according to the time shown on the forum for this post.

WotNoDeeds
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 3:50 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 98 of 168 in Discussion

Post by WotNoDeeds »

By the way we were dismissed from your office, we rather got the impression, maybe wrongly, that no-one would contact us.

That aside, please read the addition to my last post.

turtle
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012 10:44 am

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 99 of 168 in Discussion

Post by turtle »

The way I understand the situation is WND are not looking for a “win at all costs” solution to all this. I think various attempts have been suggested but met with no action. I do feel for Erol in his position as a go between and would have thought someone from MM in authority would have got involved (off board) to shut this damaging issue down .
I think the refund of a pre paid portion of the service not yet even started is perfectly reasonable in my eyes and why this should have to be put to a “legal dept” baffles me….surely a 100% refund for any unused portion of the service means just that?. And then sort out the remainder of the existing contract as a separate item.
The bottom line here is a refund of 1299tl about £270 it’s not a major amount of money considering the amount of damage this may be doing to MM
JMO…

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2571
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: MULTIMAX'S CATCH 22 REFUND POLICY

  • Quote
  •   Message 100 of 168 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

There have been many suggestions how to resolve this issue. Some very complicated with Power of Attorney being just one.

Some suggestions seem simple to me such as getting a dongle if internet access is essential for transferring money, printing documents. Or even the offer of printing documents on behalf of WND - flight tickets as an example ( Why can these not be printed now whilst the MM service is available?)

Compromise is a powerful word.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

Post Reply

Return to “INTERNET & COMPUTERS- Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”