PL
Patrick L
1 reviews | Active since Oct 2011
30 May 2019, 15:18
Lies & Filth
"Good or bad, we’re listening," you say.
"Bull****," I say. "You're not."
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
Hellopeter's replyOfficial
30 May 2019, 15:27Hi Patrick, we're so sorry that you're unhappy. Can you please let us know what has happened so that we can help?
Best regards,
Hellopeter's reply30 May 2019, 15:27
Official
Hi Patrick, we're so sorry that you're unhappy. Can you please let us know what has happened so that we can help?
Best regards,
PL
Patrick L's updateReviewer Update
30 May 2019, 16:14You are either in a deep funk of delirium, or a bunch of shameless BS artists who put up this confected front of how caring and concerned you are about customer service, and providing an interface for the public to voice its discontent with this or that service/goods provider. In reality, you're only about appearances.
Why?
Because you're marshmallows that oh so easily kowtow to the whims and caprices of subscribing companies, rather than calling them to account. You allow companies to give meaningless touchy-feely responses such as, "We're attending to your concerns," and that's the last anyone ever hears of it, typically with a nil result regarding the issue of concern. And this pattern goes back at least ten years. FFS, please realise that companies are using HP to make themselves look like they're actually concerned. And you allow this?! You think you're providing something useful?!
Shame on you. Shame on you, either for being quite deliberately gutless, or consciously oblivious. Because there's no other possibility here. And if your defence is that HP is only there to provide the client-supplier interface, then you're also delusional and disgustingly spineless.
Given the size of HP's public footprint, you should be making it a non-negotiable condition that a responding company *MUST* give concrete and verifiable details about *HOW*, *WHO*, *BY WHEN*, and *WITH WHAT RESULT* subscribing companies actually address a
complainant's concerns.
In short, your own current standard practices render you both useless and, indeed, a mendacious, ********* annoyance. I haven't used HP in years for just this reason. Instead, when I have an issue, I ferret out the top dog of the offending instance and deal with them instead. HP has (or perhaps had) real power that it has repeatedly squandering for the mere sake of being nice to its subscribers. HP needs to be much more than that. HP had the weight of public opinion in its favour--which is worth much more than any legally founded regulatory power--and in return it went and ****ed on the public instead of leveraging that weight to get some real productive effort from companies that misbehave.
Take the above as you will. Mend your ways. Or don't. But know that I won't respond to *ANY* replies from HP in this matter.
Why?
Because you're marshmallows that oh so easily kowtow to the whims and caprices of subscribing companies, rather than calling them to account. You allow companies to give meaningless touchy-feely responses such as, "We're attending to your concerns," and that's the last anyone ever hears of it, typically with a nil result regarding the issue of concern. And this pattern goes back at least ten years. FFS, please realise that companies are using HP to make themselves look like they're actually concerned. And you allow this?! You think you're providing something useful?!
Shame on you. Shame on you, either for being quite deliberately gutless, or consciously oblivious. Because there's no other possibility here. And if your defence is that HP is only there to provide the client-supplier interface, then you're also delusional and disgustingly spineless.
Given the size of HP's public footprint, you should be making it a non-negotiable condition that a responding company *MUST* give concrete and verifiable details about *HOW*, *WHO*, *BY WHEN*, and *WITH WHAT RESULT* subscribing companies actually address a
complainant's concerns.
In short, your own current standard practices render you both useless and, indeed, a mendacious, ********* annoyance. I haven't used HP in years for just this reason. Instead, when I have an issue, I ferret out the top dog of the offending instance and deal with them instead. HP has (or perhaps had) real power that it has repeatedly squandering for the mere sake of being nice to its subscribers. HP needs to be much more than that. HP had the weight of public opinion in its favour--which is worth much more than any legally founded regulatory power--and in return it went and ****ed on the public instead of leveraging that weight to get some real productive effort from companies that misbehave.
Take the above as you will. Mend your ways. Or don't. But know that I won't respond to *ANY* replies from HP in this matter.
PL
Patrick L's update30 May 2019, 16:14
Reviewer Update
You are either in a deep funk of delirium, or a bunch of shameless BS artists who put up this confected front of how caring and concerned you are about customer service, and providing an interface for the public to voice its discontent with this or that service/goods provider. In reality, you're only about appearances.
Why?
Because you're marshmallows that oh so easily kowtow to the whims and caprices of subscribing companies, rather than calling them to account. You allow companies to give meaningless touchy-feely responses such as, "We're attending to your concerns," and that's the last anyone ever hears of it, typically with a nil result regarding the issue of concern. And this pattern goes back at least ten years. FFS, please realise that companies are using HP to make themselves look like they're actually concerned. And you allow this?! You think you're providing something useful?!
Shame on you. Shame on you, either for being quite deliberately gutless, or consciously oblivious. Because there's no other possibility here. And if your defence is that HP is only there to provide the client-supplier interface, then you're also delusional and disgustingly spineless.
Given the size of HP's public footprint, you should be making it a non-negotiable condition that a responding company *MUST* give concrete and verifiable details about *HOW*, *WHO*, *BY WHEN*, and *WITH WHAT RESULT* subscribing companies actually address a
complainant's concerns.
In short, your own current standard practices render you both useless and, indeed, a mendacious, ********* annoyance. I haven't used HP in years for just this reason. Instead, when I have an issue, I ferret out the top dog of the offending instance and deal with them instead. HP has (or perhaps had) real power that it has repeatedly squandering for the mere sake of being nice to its subscribers. HP needs to be much more than that. HP had the weight of public opinion in its favour--which is worth much more than any legally founded regulatory power--and in return it went and ****ed on the public instead of leveraging that weight to get some real productive effort from companies that misbehave.
Take the above as you will. Mend your ways. Or don't. But know that I won't respond to *ANY* replies from HP in this matter.
Why?
Because you're marshmallows that oh so easily kowtow to the whims and caprices of subscribing companies, rather than calling them to account. You allow companies to give meaningless touchy-feely responses such as, "We're attending to your concerns," and that's the last anyone ever hears of it, typically with a nil result regarding the issue of concern. And this pattern goes back at least ten years. FFS, please realise that companies are using HP to make themselves look like they're actually concerned. And you allow this?! You think you're providing something useful?!
Shame on you. Shame on you, either for being quite deliberately gutless, or consciously oblivious. Because there's no other possibility here. And if your defence is that HP is only there to provide the client-supplier interface, then you're also delusional and disgustingly spineless.
Given the size of HP's public footprint, you should be making it a non-negotiable condition that a responding company *MUST* give concrete and verifiable details about *HOW*, *WHO*, *BY WHEN*, and *WITH WHAT RESULT* subscribing companies actually address a
complainant's concerns.
In short, your own current standard practices render you both useless and, indeed, a mendacious, ********* annoyance. I haven't used HP in years for just this reason. Instead, when I have an issue, I ferret out the top dog of the offending instance and deal with them instead. HP has (or perhaps had) real power that it has repeatedly squandering for the mere sake of being nice to its subscribers. HP needs to be much more than that. HP had the weight of public opinion in its favour--which is worth much more than any legally founded regulatory power--and in return it went and ****ed on the public instead of leveraging that weight to get some real productive effort from companies that misbehave.
Take the above as you will. Mend your ways. Or don't. But know that I won't respond to *ANY* replies from HP in this matter.