Subject: Client Complaint
From: Pritish Nandi <[email-masked]>
To: "Soumya Mukherjee" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Deeksha Dadu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:52:49 +0530 (IST)

Ticket #8535 is not acceptable and cannot happen again. 

It is apparent from the very beginning of the ticket that Scott was not actually reading the Member’s responses; the Member made it very clear in their very first response that they were asking for information about an Offer she saw in a PaidEmail and did not complete in the past (months ago). 

The Member made clear that she was not looking for credit – she was asking about how to locate the Offer so that she could try completing it now . 

This Member should have been told 2 things right away: 

1) Because Offers are always changing, we aren’t able to look up an Offer without the name 

2) Unfortunately, Offers are available for a limited time and if Offer is not on our Offers page or sent to her more recently in a PaidEmail, this would mean it is not available 

Instead, Scott asked repeatedly for the Member to give him the name of the Offer/company name, even though that was the very information the Member was trying to obtain from him! 

Furthermore, when the Member asked when her most recent past payment was processed, Scott asked her if she made a new request. This is unacceptable for two reasons; 

1) The Member never mentioned any new requests – she asked about an OLD request 

2) If Scott had actually been checking her Member Notes, he would have seen that she did NOT make a new request. 

This shows that not only was Scott not reading the Member’s question, he was also not actually looking at her Notes. 

Finally, Scott escalated this as a request for her payment to be reissued, when this Member never said she did not get her payment; 

1) The Member never said she didn’t receive her last payment 

2) She was only asking for the information about it 

3) She never once asked for any payment to be reissued 

This Member asked 2 very easy to answer questions. Instead, she was given answers to questions she didn’t ask, forced to repeat both questions multiple times, and in the end she was given assistance that did not even apply to her current situation. 

This type of mistake is not acceptable, because it illustrates a blatant lack of effort on the part of the Operator. None of these errors were at all difficult to avoid. If the Operator truly did not understand the Member’s question, it would have been acceptable to tell the Member he did not fully understand what the Member was asking and point out the parts that were confusing him. However, Scott did not do this; instead he gave answers to entirely different questions, and demonstrated that he was not actually doing the correct investigation to understand what the Member was asking. 

This is not acceptable and cannot happen in the future. I would like further feedback right away on how this will be handled. If you have questions, please let me know. 

R egards, 
Pritish Nandi