New advisor payments !!

[Augustus]

I'm sure most will take great pleasure reading the latest letter from HQ explaining how the new payments are going to be setup.

It mainly deals with DOR's/ service calls and claw backs.

One big thing to notice is that we will carry the cost if damage is done in the customers home.

While there are few cases of this per advisor, I'm sure that accidents do happen. As property damage can be quite costly, who else now feels that we to get some kind of insurance ?


Maybe we could have a look around and get some kind of deal for volume ?

Welcome all comments on the contents of the letter.

P.

ps- before everyone starts banging on about extra commission rates etc - it did mention that this was stage one and these issues WERE what we highlighted as a major pain.

[reginald]

Hi ther Motters have just read john rismans letter. Can you confirm that as I believe If I do the service call outside my home at the moment that I will be paid £20 flat rate for any job? The job entails refitting ,in the correct place, 4 wooden blinds, 2 roman blinds and 1 eze stop velux blind. these are for a customer who refuses to have the original agent back in the house. If I am only going to be paid £20 then no more jobs will be done!!!

[blindmanbill]

I have just read the new Risman communication, mmmmm! First reaction is, this has been very carefully calculated to make sure we're the losers. And if this is only the first stage, who knows what they're planning. I'm afraid I just don't trust them.

[hereticus]

Reginald - read on ! On the last page of the mailer, in response to the FAQ 'do these charges apply to every situation ?' is the comment that 'we will always treat exceptional circumstances on an ad-hoc basis'

I would ventue to suggest that refitting multiple blinds under these circumstances would be justification for a negotiated service call charge to reflect the time involved.

I have only received the mailer an hour ago, have given it a quick read, welcome the fact that it does exactly what we asked (greater clarity) but can also see some implications on which I need to ponder. I'm sure that most of us will be pleased to see some progress but also that the solutions offered will raise some new issues. I hope that we will all take time to reflect, consider the package as a whole, and then raise any issues in a constructive manner - it would be a great shame if this considerable initiative was immediately undermined by a mad rush to post ill considered comment.

[owl]

After reading Mr Rismans letter this morning, i can only see one good point in all that print.

That good point is free sam paper, which it should have been from day one.

As for paying for damage in customers homes ourselves if it happens, i thought thats why our commission rate was low compared to other like companies to pay for the insurance?

Well if this is the case i shall no longer touch conservatories, not a prayer. Or fit onto any pvc frame again.

Service calls will now be booked into our diaries.....so less sales calls = less commission = FSM DEMANDING MORE AVAILABILITY AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN A DAY TO 28.

I will no longer do any service calls on behalf of another agent so he/she will not get £20 deducted because of me, rest assured, unless they scrap this ridiculous idea.

Another chance to use the Advisor not available option.

So my friends it looks like we will have to take out our own public liability insurance,...........more expense to us.

The way the letter was addressed ..Letter from Mr Risman i know i know i fell for it.. i thought it was going to be good news............ you know just for once!

My fed has never been more up.

Sorry hereticus

owl.

[farmer]

having just glanced at the mailer this morning, hope i am not to forward here..

With regards to damages in customers home..
Am i right in reading that we are now liable for damages caused in customers home.
take this week for example, my fitter has been accused of chipping a worktop in a kitchen.
Would i now be liable for rectifying that problem
Louisa, and i will e- mail you to clarify this.
If I am to be liable and i need to take out public liablity insurnce of my own, then let me tell you this, the 4 grand conservatory i have got lined up to survey next week, i will pass on to someone else, cos this chap has threatened to make Hillarys put a new roof on if he has to.

Plus if this is now the policy then i like nonails and one or two other might as well jack in, set up on my own and have entirly the whole risk of what i do, but get better renumeratd.

As i say the mailer is not yet fully read and understood, but I would like to know where i stand before i enter another customers house.

More and more people are trying it on, claiming this that and the other.

Have i misunderstood it, or will we now have to take our own public liablity insurance.??

If we do, then i am afraid you have just sent this agent down the wrong track

[aikido]

I notice that there is no metion of higher commission paid for self generated orders why not?

[hereticus]

aikido said:

I notice that there is no metion of higher commission paid for self generated orders why not?

Because, as it states quite clearly in the letter, "this is just the first phase of the review of the whole rewards package and we have aimed to fix the hottest issues first. The project team is now busy establishing how incentives and variable commission rates can be used to recognise good business practice"

Please lets not criticise Hillarys for doing as we asked - we stressed through this forum and at the feedback seminars that Service Call Payments, Mulitple DOR's, and Clawback were causing the most dissent, so they have prioritised these issues. Other matters relating to the reward structure were also mentioned and are in the next phase of an ongoing process.

[Bear]

aikido said:

I notice that there is no metion of higher commission paid for self generated orders why not?

Can someone just explain this again for my benefit in words of one syllable or less.
I read it, went & had a coffee , and came back and read it again ( this time at the forefront of my mind was thr fact it was coming from Colwick,) and I got a different meaning.

Oh, and while you are at it--tell me how it addresses the Stolen Commission lark!??
I am just a simple old Bear, you understand!!

Bear

[Blind Scout]

admin said:

.... One big thing to notice is that we will carry the cost if damage is done in the customers home.

While there are few cases of this per advisor, I'm sure that accidents do happen. As property damage can be quite costly, who else now feels that we to get some kind of insurance ?


Maybe we could have a look around and get some kind of deal for volume ?

I was under the impression for over 10 years as an agent, that Public Liability including damage insurance was carried by Hillary's for this very reason. Could this be another cost passing on to us?

[JoY]

Too risky to go into someone's home with no insurance.....

What if you knock over an antique whatever costing ££££££'s when trying to negotiate your bag across the room, let alone drilling into their property???

Are we covered until the 8th May?

After that I will not be entering anyone's house unless I have insurance...

Has anyone checked out how much this will cost us to take out privately yet....

(Think I'll do that now.....)

But the rest of the letter seems good to me....as far it goes.

STILL WANT MY PAST COMMISSION BACK THOUGH!!!

[keenasmustard]

who decides that its going to be another advisors error?
at the moment we more experienced advisor's are asked to go and give second opinions on other advisor's fittings. will this now be down to all advisor's to decide on each others disgruntled customers.
just look at these 2 scenario's for a second,
customer complains about blind, advisor returns reorders dor,reorders and refits,customer still not happy asks for second opinion ,service support send shop fitter out(this is when they were still about)he doesn't like advisor so he then tells customer that all the blinds are wrong even though they are not she believe him and demands they are put right.at this he's rubbing his hands together and gets numerous calls out of one dor plus plenty of money. then it transpires that the customer then decides not to complain about the amount of time all this as taken so is given the order free of charge.

recently called out to a conservatory to give second opinion because the customer wasn't happy with the brackets, blinds hitting the handles,on survey it it was apparent that yes the brackets were wrong 31/2 instead of 5 had been used so I agreed to this change. what the customer didn't complain about which was obvious to my trained eye was the fact that 6 of the eight blinds had been measured wrong.when the brackets were changed she was more than happy no discount but none the wiser.

so what do we do in future the 1st or 2nd?
does it become the responsibility of the service caller or the original advisor?
also what would be the charge is it £20 per call or £160 for the full conservatory.

as a foot note why can Hillary's make a mistake as the 1st dor for free but we can't make a 1st mis measure for free to me whats good for me should be good for them( in any one year and I'm in my 11th the most m/m I've had as been 5 compared with dor's which I have lost count) are the production staff going to be paying us £20 for all their mistakes?

[pyramid]

' full costs to be paid by the adviser when he/she is clearly negligent '

You will need a lawyer to decipher this. Is that damage to the blind or damage to property?

Also why no payment for first DOR when Hillarys have been clearly negligent? e.g. mixed carriers on a vertical or roman blinds so poorly made a child could have done the quality control.

Perhaps we could be paid to do the quality control. Maybe not.
( A recent 'chat' with FSM made it clear it was neither his nor my responsibility )

[JoY]

I have just put forward the suggestion to HILLARYS, that they continue to pay the public liability insurance for all the advisors as they do now..... but that the cost of it is shared between all the 800 plus advisors. This has got to be cheaper than us all taking out our own insurance.


ADVICE to ALL

DO NOT ENTER ANYONE'S HOUSE EITHER TO SELL OR FIT WITHOUT BEING INSURED.

THIS INSURANCE ISSUE MUST BE SORTED OUT NOW.


Imagine all the scenarios where you could get stung for hundreds or thousands of pounds. From knocking a priceless antique off the window sill, to drilling a hole in the wrong place.

[owl]

[quote
Also why no payment for first DOR when Hillarys have been clearly negligent? e.g. mixed carriers on a vertical or roman blinds so poorly made a child could have done the quality control.

)[/quote]


Because the wood vens dept would close the company.

But i agree we should be paid for ALL DORs as its our time and expense and they are "clearly negligent" and this way we are "sharing the risk".

owl.