Friday, July 20, 2007

GMAC/COMPLAINT

I’m hoping GMAC Financial Services (Customer Service # 1-800-616-4622) has someone surfing the net (specifically blogs) to track complaints.

I’m basing this (slim) hope on a post I read on Astoria Oregon Rust. (Thanks, Guy.) Apparently there are companies who check blogs as a means of ensuring customer satisfaction.

So, this post is really not for my regular readers – unless you happen to be one of the higher-ups at GMAC. (If so, listen up….)

And if no one at GMAC comes across this blog, this post is simply a meaningless rant…a lone, plaintive voice howling into cyberspace….


TO: CUSTOMER SERVICE PEOPLE AND/OR BIG-WIGS AT GMAC


I “get” it.

I “get” the fact you have a Privacy Policy.

And I “get it” that you are unable to discuss with me details as to the account in question because I am not listed as an authorized person.

(Damn that oversight….)

But what about your ability to listen? Did your Privacy Policy deprive you of that, too?

I simply wanted to tell you something. A little something about the PAC payments – the fact that the chequing account they are coming from is closing soon.

And, hey, guess what? I wanted to send you a VOID cheque for the new chequing account. You, know, so no payments would be missed.


News flash - eventually (supposedly) I’m going to be the one listed on that account as the person with whom you are authorized to speak.

But then maybe I won’t want to discuss matters with you. My sense of privacy might feel threatened. Perhaps I’ll want to take my business elsewhere. Trade in the damn car once it’s in my name and get financing for a new car from some other place. Could happen. Sure feels like it today.

May I suggest you consider the fact that the concept of Customer Service/Satisfaction applies to future customers as well? And that there should be reasonable and logical limits regarding adherence to your Privacy Policy?

If you had simply listened to what I wanted to tell you and never said a word in reply, that would not have constituted a discussion. And after listening, perhaps you might have then taken the necessary steps to ensure the payments continued (i.e. get in touch with the authorized person).

Note - these two words – DISCUSS & LISTEN – have two different meanings.


Yours Truly,
One Seriously Ticked-off Woman


(To anyone who has read this far – yeah, I know, I know. One way or another, I still have to deal with this matter or I’ll be without a car. I “get” that, too.)

16 comments:

oreneta said...

Lets hope they hear it...in the big sense as well as for you.

Trish said...

Hey, what a great idea! Of course big companies...or any business for that matter, would troll blogs for candid feedback! *light bulb* Last year I ranted about an author and the next day she left me a comment *cringe* I had no idea SHE would be searching her name in blogland...but hey, if it's feedback they want then why not?

Good luck...I'll be checking back to see what happens.

The Guy Who Writes This said...

So it's worked with several people who wrote me after my article. You go, girl!

Anonymous said...

I just read your post. I am a manager at GMAC. I would prefer not to reply to you via this blog. Is it possible you could post your email address to faciltate my attempts to resolve your situation ?

Thanks

Beth said...

anonymous:
I have noted that you are indeed from GMAC. Thank you for your response. If you click on "View My Complete Profile" on the main page of my blog, it will take you to a page noting Contact. Click on the "Email" link.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Beth said...

oreneta:
I was heard.

trish:
"It" happened. And I'm grateful. We'll see what happens next.

guy:
I'm goin'...
Thanks again.

All Mod Cons said...

I'm amazed that someone responded! That's VERY cool! I may have to try that with my bank as they're being arses.

Go get em!

Diesel said...

These people are unable to think outside of a very narrow box. I remember dealing with some CSR about a ding on my credit score because of some money that I supposedly owed (I don't even remember what it was for). I kept asking them how much I owed, and how I could go about paying it, and they kept telling me that they couldn't just delete the item from my credit report. "I'm not asking you to," I said. "But apparently I owe you money, so I'd like to know how much and how I go about paying it." They kept responding the same way, no matter how I rephrased it, because they were used to answering a certain question and couldn't understand what I was saying. VERY frustrating.

Beth said...

all mod cons:
I too am amazed - and impressed. Certainly a lesson in "no harm in trying."
We shall see!

diesel:
These experiences are extremely frustrating - and not only did I reveal my frustration on this blog, I do believe a bit (!) of it emerged in that phone call. You want to say (although I didn't), "No more rote answers - talk like a human being!"

Attila The Mom said...

Somebody needs a good ass-kicking. LOL

Mom of Three said...

I had the SAME problem with CitiFinancial when I would call to GIVE them money! Because SH was the one on the account, they couldn't even talk to me. Or, they'd call and wouldn't talk to me. Like I was persona non grata.

Good luck!!

Beth said...

attila:
I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Me being the camel.)

mof3:
It's not something you always think to do (authorization rights x 2) when setting up accounts but, boy, it comes back to haunt you if you don't.

Lainey-Paney said...

Excellent letter.

Beth said...

lainey-paney:
Thanks!

Princess Pointful said...

That is a great idea-- further evidence of your brilliance :). And a brief scan (though I have not read the post yet) shows that it may have worked!

A big ugh for privacy policies. An ethics class has shown me how confidentiality is valued so much in our society, that much more than even safety and other such considerations. My experience with the cell phone company and my stalker provided a prime example!

Beth said...

princess pointful:
Perhaps using this idea re: your cell phone company might have worked. (Or still could?)