New advisor payments !!

[dodgybracket]

jayandemm said:

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.

...AND WHAT ABOUT THE EXCESS YOU WILL HAVE TO STUMP UP ON EVERY CLAIM SAY THE FIRST £50......OH YEAH

DO NOT ENTER A SINGLE HOUSE TILL THIS IS SORTED....

[owl]

dodgybracket said:

jayandemm said:

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.

...AND WHAT ABOUT THE EXCESS YOU WILL HAVE TO STUMP UP ON EVERY CLAIM SAY THE FIRST £50......OH YEAH

DO NOT ENTER A SINGLE HOUSE TILL THIS IS SORTED....

I AGREE .

[JoY]

Motters....

I think you should send an email to everyone registered about the very real risk they will be taking if they enter a house with no insurance.

Anyone who intends to risk it is MAD!!!!
________________________________________-

READ THIS QUOTE........


How important is public liability insurance to my business?
Public liability insurance is now seen by most associations, government bodies and business owners as the core insurance cover for all businesses and organisations. It is designed to cover you against third parties who claim that as a result of your organisations negligence (lack of care) they have suffered either physical injury or death, you will also be covered in the event that you damage a third parties property. Last year over £5 billion was paid out in claims relating to liability insurance, most of which is from public liability insurance.

What happens if I have a claim and can’t pay the compensation?
In the event that you are successfully pursued by a third party who claims that as a result of your business’s negligence they have suffered a loss you will be liable to pay the damages. If you have public liability insurance the insurance company will pay the cost of the claim minus any charges you have, such as an excess. If you do not have any insurance you will be liable for the claim, this can effect you in one of two ways depending on the way your business is set up. If you are a limited company the amount of liability you as a director are exposed to is limited, if you are unable to pay the cost of the compensation then your business will go into liquidation. If you are the sole proprietor of your business then the liability isn’t limited an the responsibility falls on you personally. If you are unable to pay the cost of the compensation then a court will start looking at your assets as way of payment, pursuing your cars, home and any other tangible assets you have.

[hereticus]

Bear asks "tell me how it addresses the Stolen Commission lark!??"

Bear...it doesn't, but I don't think it was intended to.

We sought greater clarity of the payment structure, plus recompense for multiple DOR visits and Service Calls, plus an end to clawbacks, and it seems that to some degree we have been successful.

There is a trade off in that mismeasure / agent error penalties will be increased but it doesn't take a maths genius to realise that this whole new structure will result in a nett cost to Hillarys and is therefore an investment in advisor satisfaction.

What this document does is to clarify our rewards and penalties structure going forward into the future. It does not address any outstanding problems relating to previous practice. I acknowledge that those problems are still hanging out there and need to be addressed but I don't think they were ever intended to be part of this pay structure review.

Lets see this communication for what it is, and other unrelated issues as something seperate - important, yes - urgent, possibly - deeply resented, definitely - but nevertheless still seperate issues.

[silktown1]

when i started with Hillary's iasked what would happen if i damaged a customers property.
i was told that if the damage was small then try to rectify it yourself,but if it was say over £50 the insurance would pay for it.
i was told i was insured for up to 1 million pounds but try not to use it all at once.
i am frequently asked if i am insured,what do i tell the customer now?

[hereticus]

Joy, and others who have posted on this subject - aren't you jumping to false conclusions and getting carried away by your enthusiasm to unearth another conspiracy theory ?

There is nothing in the mailer to suggest that public liability cover is being withdrawn, and we need have no fear regarding going about our jobs in a sensible and professional manner. Everybody is still fully covered by Hillarys public laibility cover so please stop this scaremongering.

If you read the communication properly it says that 'if damage is incurred through clear negligence we will expect the advisor to bear the cost'. The key phrase in this is "clear negligence" i.e incompetence combined with stupidity.

I posted a story the other day about drilling through a concealed cable in a conservatory. If that happened again in a couple of weeks time the situation would be no different. It happens that I resolved that particular problem myself but, that aside, Hillarys would have settled any claim from the customer and, in the future, Hillarys would still settle any claim from the customer. Nothing has changed in that respect.

I have spoken to Ross Kenney this morning (yep, on a Saturday) because I was worried about where this particular thread was going and I can give some unofficial clarification which, in due course, will also be clarified officially.

The phrase 'clear negligence' means precisely that - if you walk over a customer's new cream carpet in muddy boots, why should Hillarys pay ? If you weigh 16 stone and decide to put your whole weight on a plastic toilet seat, why should Hillarys pay ? The only advisors who need have any concern about this measure are the total idiots who treat both the company and their customers with contempt. For the rest of us everything stays the same.

Ross recognises that this particular matter has not been communicated clearly and will address the issue of clarification as quickly as possible, but there is no intention to penalise anybody for anything which is not entirely, totally, and culpably the result of their own clear negligence. Accidents happen to the best of us (like mine this week) and will still be covered as they always have been.

[owl]

hereticus said:

Bear asks "tell me how it addresses the Stolen Commission lark!??"

Bear...it doesn't, but I don't think it was intended to.

We sought greater clarity of the payment structure, plus recompense for multiple DOR visits and Service Calls, plus an end to clawbacks, and it seems that to some degree we have been successful.

There is a trade off in that mismeasure / agent error penalties will be increased but it doesn't take a maths genius to realise that this whole new structure will result in a nett cost to Hillarys and is therefore an investment in advisor satisfaction.

What this document does is to clarify our rewards and penalties structure going forward into the future. It does not address any outstanding problems relating to previous practice. I acknowledge that those problems are still hanging out there and need to be addressed but I don't think they were ever intended to be part of this pay structure review.

Lets see this communication for what it is, and other unrelated issues as something seperate - important, yes - urgent, possibly - deeply resented, definitely - but nevertheless still seperate issues.

hereticus i appreciate your and the others who were involved in the seminars efforts, but do you honestly think this can in any way be called progress. This goes nowhere to giving me advisor satisfaction, and judging by the posts so far in response nobody else either.

owl.

[JoY]

Hereticus...

I'm not trying to "unearth another conspiracy theory" as you put it.

Just looking after number one!

As long as Ross can confirm that Hillarys will continue to cover us I'll be happy to continue entering customers houses. I would like that confirmation though, please. Definitely needs clarification.

Quote from John Risman..

"We will then notify you of the costs involved and deduct the equivalent amount from your commission. If the damage is significant enough to be insurable, the settlemant of this will be negotiated with you by your FSM"

[Bear]

jayandemm said:

Hereticus...

I'm not trying to "unearth another conspiracy theory" as you put it.

Just looking after number one!

As long as Ross can confirm that Hillarys will continue to cover us I'll be happy to continue entering customers houses. I would like that confirmation though, please. Definitely needs clarification.

Quote from John Risman..

"We will then notify you of the costs involved and deduct the equivalent amount from your commission. If the damage is significant enough to be insurable, the settlemant of this will be negotiated with you by your FSM"

.........Me also!

Bear

[hereticus]

jayandemm said:

Hereticus...

I'm not trying to "unearth another conspiracy theory" as you put it.

Just looking after number one!

As long as Ross can confirm that Hillarys will continue to cover us I'll be happy to continue entering customers houses. I would like that confirmation though, please.

Joy - and get it you most certainly will ! Public Liability Insurance remains in force as it always has ! I'm sure that Ross recognises that this 'red herring' needs to be canned fast and will communicate the necessary reassurances as quickly as possible.

[JoY]

Ross has just been online.... (2.30pm Saturday)

And then signed off without making any comments.

[hereticus]

Owl asks "hereticus i appreciate your and the others who were involved in the seminars efforts, but do you honestly think this can in any way be called progress. This goes nowhere to giving me advisor satisfaction, and judging by the posts so far in response nobody else either"

Yes, I do honestly think this is progress - even though I am not totally happy with all of it I do think that the company have listened and have tried to respond to many of the issues that we raised. Take a few examples :

- in the past we have received no payment for any DOR visit, even when we have had multiple DOR's and multiple return visits. Now we will only be required to make a maximum of one return within our contract and will get paid for further visits.

- in the past we have had no clear understanding of the system for service call payments, but now we know exactly where we stand and will get paid for any service visit which is not a result of our own personal error.

- in the past the company has clawed back commission when it has settled a dispute with a customer. This will no longer happen - if commission has been paid it can no longer be clawed back.

- in the past we have paid for SAM Paper - no more !

I think that I would interpret this as progress and, furthermore, as a clear sign of goodwill - proof that the company listened to our concerns and is making genuine efforts to deal with them, or at least meet us part way.

I have my own concerns about a couple of points in the mailer - nothing earth shattering and nothing to undermine the good points - but intend to reflect on these so that I can post reasoned comments rather than inciting riot. As I posted earlier today, we should look at this in context as a whole package, commend the good points, and comment constructively on anything else - not try to shoot the whole thing down in flames because somebody chooses to misinterpret one specific point.

[owl]

hereticus, i notice the issue on clawbacks states on final payment received. So if the blinds are delivered late and miss the fit app or they are faulty and customer rings and complains, then they WILL be offered a discount, then clawback on our commission on sales achieved.

£20 for a mis-measure thats an insult. Ok it doesnt happen often but does anyone at colwick get fined £20 for making a mistake. After all we are only human and everybody makes mistakes.

So why dont they pay us £20 for each DOR blind not the visit or call.

owl.

[kwikfitfitter]

I think the answer to that one Joy is not to phone but to email all communications and "request a read reciept" then you have proof in writing

[JoY]

newbold said:

hereticus, i notice the issue on clawbacks states on final payment received. So if the blinds are delivered late and miss the fit app or they are faulty and customer rings and complains, then they WILL be offered a discount, then clawback on our commission on sales achieved.

£20 for a mis-measure thats an insult. Ok it doesnt happen often but does anyone at colwick get fined £20 for making a mistake. After all we are only human and everybody makes mistakes.

So why dont they pay us £20 for each DOR blind not the visit or call.

owl.

Good point Owl.


Either £20 per blind for a mismeasure/DOR/servcie call OR per order. AND why not on the first DOR?


For example.

I recently DOR'd 6 rollers because they came as normal when I had phoned and requested the order was changed to reverse rolled. On my next commission statement I had been deducted £45 for 6 mismeasures! My FSM said as there was no proof that I made that phone call - it was my word against Hillarys. Guess who was believed? (How come they were remade them without a code from my FSM if they were going down as agent error!)

This sort of thing would now cost a fine of £120!!!!