Clarification of New Payments & Charges

[Blind Scout]

phugly said:

I never move furniture, nor will I remove ornaments that are in the way. Customer is informed at sale to ensure that the windows are cleared for the fitting and that there is sufficient room for me to work.
regarding fitting over sinks. There is a fashion now for the old "Belfast" sinks that protrude from the walls a fair way and make it impossible to fit over without climbing on top.

methinks we will all need to specify this at time of sale.

One good idea I saw a painter had, was a length of MDF, with a small stand off underneath to raise it 10mm of the surface. He used it over sinks to avoid inadvertantly buckling the draining board.

[RED]

OK I have the letter and have read it through.
I understand the merits of it and although not happy can live with it so long as not too many claims are made and wipe out my small income.
What I can not understand is the line in the last paragraph which says,
What we have attempted to do is to introduce changes that will reward good adviser business practice, but discourage bad habits.

Am I missing something here, what reward?
All I see is a penalty for a accident and no mention of a reward for no accidents.
Can someone please clarify where the reward part is as I can not see it.

Red

[grumperbear]

Nothing in writting then, still confused, fsm will call ( as if he knows how to use the phone ).

l have never had a claim in all my years, so this must be my reward....... l don't pay £250 if l don't damage something.

[JoY]

newbold said:

stonehills said:

What I can not understand is the line in the last paragraph which says,
What we have attempted to do is to introduce changes that will reward good adviser business practice, but discourage bad habits.

Am I missing something here, what reward?
All I see is a penalty for a accident and no mention of a reward for no accidents.
Can someone please clarify where the reward part is as I can not see it.

Red

Exactly. ALSO The letter CLEARLY states that "From Monday, 29 May 2006 we will be asking Advisors to pay the first £250 of this excess" SO we only pay The £250 when Hillarys have to pay their excess of £1500 and make a claim . So, if Hillarys dont make a claim on their insurance we pay NOWT.

owl.

Brilliant...... didn't take long for someone to find the loophole. Should we delete this post before Hillarys see it and re-write "the Letter" once again?

[RED]

newbold said:

stonehills said:

What I can not understand is the line in the last paragraph which says,
What we have attempted to do is to introduce changes that will reward good adviser business practice, but discourage bad habits.

Am I missing something here, what reward?
All I see is a penalty for a accident and no mention of a reward for no accidents.
Can someone please clarify where the reward part is as I can not see it.

Red

Exactly. ALSO The letter CLEARLY states that "From Monday, 29 May 2006 we will be asking Advisors to pay the first £250 of this excess" SO we only pay The £250 when Hillarys have to pay their excess of £1500 and make a claim . So, if Hillarys dont make a claim on their insurance we pay NOWT.

owl.

Not quite sure if you are reading it right or are reading it the way you want to read it.
As far as I can tell, all claims made up to 1500 pounds will be paid by Hillary's and they will claim the 250 off you. They will only involve the insurers when the cost is over 1500 pounds.
Seen as most claims will be for under the 1500 pound ceiling and more than likely most claims are for less than 250 pounds that would mean that you would probably foot the bill for every small claim up to 250 pounds made against you and Hillary's pay nothing.
In a nut shell, Hillary's will pay nothing if its under 250 pounds as you will be presented with the bill.
Hillary's will pay nothing if its over 1500 pounds as the insurance will kick in.
Hillary's will only pay themselves between 250 pounds and 1500 pounds to keep the premium down and as most claims will be under the 250 pound threshold they will not find themselves paying out too much.
Have I got this right?

Red

[RED]

On a similar note.
I have business car insurance with a 250 pound excess.
So if I make a claim on this excess whilst doing my job for Hillary's, does this mean I can claim it back from them under the same principle.

Red

[BlindWizard]

Good one owl.

Whilst I don't think it is fair that advisors have this additional possible expense of £250 when we are earning less and less because Hillarys are going down market I think it is now clear and won't be changed.

But all the rest of the changes have not been clarified and it is not good enough to have a telephone conversation with the FSM. These are financial contractual matters unless the FSM is willing to put in writing what has been clarified we will be on a hiding for nothing in any disagreement later and the original document will stand unclear.

I notice a few head office staff have been on today - Please can you explain why you will not clarify in writing to all, you have obviously briefed the FSMs what to say as you can't let each one interpret the points themselves otherwise we will have even more confusion !!

[phugly]

stonehills said:

What I can not understand is the line in the last paragraph which says,
What we have attempted to do is to introduce changes that will reward good adviser business practice, but discourage bad habits.

I have read this letter several times now and I also fail to see where the rewards to good advisors are. All I see is an attempt to get money off advisors cos they dont seem to be getting it from customers.

As one who was on the seminars I can vouch that a reward system for consistent high business was discussed, but a penalty system of this sort wasnt. It appears to me that management are trying to lay the blame for this on those that took part in the seminars with possibly the aim of dividing this forum.

With regards to clarifying the other payments, a verbal explanation is not good enough. With something this important it must be put in writing and sent to every advisor

[phugly]

pyramid said:

Told by my FSM yesterday reason for changes not in writing is that they are interpreted in different ways by each adviser.
WELL MAKE THEM CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THEN.

So FSMs are all clones and will interpret them in exactly the same fashion to everyone. I DONT THINK!!!!!!!!!
FSMs are all individuals just like us.I'm lucky, I have a good one, but they're just as likely to put different interpretations to these proposals as we are

[RED]

I dont think there is much chance of splitting the forum.
Although a great deal of advisor's do not post ,myself and others on this forum have spoken to a great deal of them in one capacity or another and the general consensus is we all feel the same and although a lot of the posts are negative they agree but wont post, the reasons are many from, dont know how to, dont want to make my self look silly, afraid of reprisals, to negative but agree and the main one, there is no point me saying anything as its all been said already.
The forum members went in there with all the good will and intentions in the world to try and steer Hillarys back to where it should be. On top. If Hillary's choose to ignore the forum then it is their loss at the end of the day

Red.

[agentcruise114313]

Had my letter today and my fsm phoned.

l mentioned to him about the reward bit, and he replied it was to make the bad advisors more acountable for their mistakes. As l had not had a claim in my 8 years with Hillarys l had nothing to worry about.

So my reward is..........

........"l have nothing to worry about"

[greenpesto]

Here's some suggestions based on the feed-back so far on this topic:

DO NOT move items in customers house - ALWAYS get them to move it!!!

Keep tools clean & DON'T put them down on tables/chairs/new carpets etc.

DON'T stand on toilet seats/baths/sinks etc.
If you do - get permission from the customer & explain the risks & that it is THEIR risk. However, it is often the ONLY way to gain access to the window.
IF IN DOUBT - WALK AWAY!!!

Get a copy of any claim or correspondence direct from the customer.
This way you'll know if Hillarys are attempting to over-charge you at a flat rate of £250 rather than the claim costing no more than e.g. £20 etc.

Any correspondence from Hillarys should be confirmed IN WRITING!!!

If in doubt you could as was suggested to me recently is to Tape all conversations with Hillarys employees as a back-up!
It will upset them but they tape ALL incoming calls too!

I'm sure I've forgotten something but I'll bet some of you will add to this list!!!!!

[farmer]

stonehills said:

On a similar note.
I have business car insurance with a 250 pound excess.
So if I make a claim on this excess whilst doing my job for Hillary's, does this mean I can claim it back from them under the same principle.

Red

I have never had much to do with this kind of thing. Would we now be better off getting our own insurance, i hae got a few quotes in, and the excess is no where near £250.

Plus if it happened to us then, we, ourselves could fight our own corner, not anyone connected with hillarys.

I myself have had 5 claims in 16 years. And only this week i have smashed a light fitting. Fortunately for me the customer has said she wants re-enbursing.


So does it now mean each job is to now assesed as to wether it is worth doing, ie, stretching over a sink to fit an £80 roller, standing in a bath to fit a £75 venetian. The list could be pages long.

I understand where Hillarys are coming from, but again, we are footing the bill out of our meagre commission, which incidentally hasn't changed for years.

So the point is, on top of all the other hassle we get, (see my posting from yesterday), this is now an added burden.

Take the 3 for 99's. I will now no longer do any 3 for 99 calls, because the risk is simply not worth it. following up these leads often takes us into areas where the type of people you deal with are on the lookout to try and conn you.
Why risk your £14 against a £250 fine.

Also on a legal issue, can Hillarys take the £250 out of the commission before they give it to you. Or should they bill us for it separately. would it be a good idea to seek legal advice on this matter.

Also can we see a copy of the insurance Hillarys say they have got. We have only there word for the amount of excess they pay.



all in all its just another nail in the coffin for me..

Unless our commission rate goes up. But that isn't going to happen is it.

[JoY]

I think that the "associates" booking the sales appointments should now ask the customer to make sure that everything is removed from the window sills of any window they want a blind measured for, and any furniture moved prior to our visit, as well as putting down a protective cover on their carpets, (particularly when it has been raining). This will be of upmost importance where the customer may be elderly and not able to move heavy furniture themselves. They will need to get a friend or relative to do it for them prior to our visit, as moving settees on carpets or laminate can easily cause scratches....

Not joking.....very serious....


The latest letter also reads to me as ...you wanted this..now you've got it!...

[farmer]

farmer said:

stonehills said:

On a similar note.
I have business car insurance with a 250 pound excess.
So if I make a claim on this excess whilst doing my job for Hillary's, does this mean I can claim it back from them under the same principle.

Red

I have never had much to do with this kind of thing. Would we now be better off getting our own insurance, i hae got a few quotes in, and the excess is no where near £250.

Plus if it happened to us then, we, ourselves could fight our own corner, not anyone connected with hillarys.

I myself have had 5 claims in 16 years. And only this week i have smashed a light fitting. Fortunately for me the customer has said she wants re-enbursing.


So does it now mean each job is to now assesed as to wether it is worth doing, ie, stretching over a sink to fit an £80 roller, standing in a bath to fit a £75 venetian. The list could be pages long.

I understand where Hillarys are coming from, but again, we are footing the bill out of our meagre commission, which incidentally hasn't changed for years.

So the point is, on top of all the other hassle we get, (see my posting from yesterday), this is now an added burden.

Take the 3 for 99's. I will now no longer do any 3 for 99 calls, because the risk is simply not worth it. following up these leads often takes us into areas where the type of people you deal with are on the lookout to try and conn you.
Why risk your £14 against a £250 fine.

Also on a legal issue, can Hillarys take the £250 out of the commission before they give it to you. Or should they bill us for it separately. would it be a good idea to seek legal advice on this matter.

Also can we see a copy of the insurance Hillarys say they have got. We have only there word for the amount of excess they pay.



all in all its just another nail in the coffin for me..

Unless our commission rate goes up. But that isn't going to happen is it.

i should have said the customer DOESNT WANT reembursing !!!