I have a reply from Boylesports. It has been sent from Linda Gray, nominally at least, although a comment left under the previous post by someone who has an insight into the corporate customer service environment perhaps casts doubt as to whether it does actually come from the Head of Customer Services herself. Let's not be too cynical and instead take it for what it is, which is a simple brush off, albeit a polite one.
Many thanks for contacting Boylesports Customer Services.
Firstly, let me apologise for your having to take the time to raise a complaint following your experience with the customer support team.
On review of the chat, I can appreciate the frustration that you must have felt in light of the contradictory information that was offered. In response to the points that you raise, the agent you spoke to is new to the department and as such this has highlighted an obvious knowledge gap that I will ensure is addressed internally and indeed promptly. I can only apologise that the information offered on this occasion was inaccurate.
Secondly, I can officially confirm that those who were removed from our special offers and enhancements on 10/04/2012 were not informed of such removal. I acknowledge that this was not the information that you were furnished with on your original chat but this ultimately is the result again of a knowledge gap.
With regards to the points raised on the BPG advertisement on the website, this is displayed on the site regardless of whether a customer is logged in or not and is not tailored to a specific group of customers. In addition, you acknowledge that you freely accepted our terms and conditions. Each time the website is used by a customer, they are ultimately agreeing to all terms associated with the operation of their account. In this particular instance, you placed a bet and expected that you would receive BPG on your particular selection however the terms and conditions supercede any information display on the website and as such, as your account had been restricted from special offers you were not eligible for the better return.
Whilst the poor experience you received from the chat support team is regrettable, you have my assurance that this is something that I will focus on in earnest as it is not our intention to mislead or provide inaccurate information to our customers. With regards to the BPG and special offer restriction, I am afraid I cannot offer any additional advise. I acknowledge your complaint however the situation in this respect will not change.
If you are dissatisfied with my response, I would encourage you to contact IBAS. Their contact details can be found at this link http://www.ibas-uk.com/
Customer Support Manager
The issue of whether or not the company's Terms & Conditions of business are superceded by the laws relating to (un)fair advertising is rather neatly sidestepped. It is a legal point upon which I am really not sure of my ground. I remember from studying the law of contract that if a term of a contract is either blatantly unreasonable or runs contrary to statutory law, then that condition is deemed "unfair". I still recall that there is a satute - The Unfair Contract Terms Act - that is specifically relevant to this issue. Unfortunately, I learnt all this back in the dim and hazy days of 1994 and as a typical student of the time, I spent most of that year pissed. Let's just say I don't want to go in there all guns blazing, quoting this statute and that. Not only might I be completely wrong, I'd look a right prize arsehole to boot!
Where I am perhaps to force the issue further is when the time inevitably arrives when the account is rendered effectively useless by severe staking restrictions. At this point I will ask for a copy of all my personal information held on file to be sent to me, and for their copy to be destroyed. I know that this too runs contrary to Boylesports' Ts&Cs, but the laws of data protection I know from my own place of work are not to be dismissed lightly. This is a battleground I am more confident of fighting on.
In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions as to how I reply to Ms Gray's response, let me know in the "Comments" section.
Not too impressive on the horses. Northern Monkey and On The Nose were in action on either day, and from 13 selections a return was secured from just one, and that was merely for a place. Elsewhere, The Market Examiner found a winner on Saturday that provided a 0.33pt profit, but were unsuccessful with one bet on Sunday.
Northern Monkey: Staked 3.75pts, -2.25pts.
On The Nose: Staked 5.75pts, -5.75pts.
The Market Examiner: Staked 5pts, -0.67pts.
Not that great, but not disastrous either, was the footie. Summer Of Footballl came out just the wrong side of neutral, Strike Zone (homes) the same, and The Sportsman and Strike Zone (aways) dropped a single point each.
With the services I'm trialling pulling in a small profit between them though, the overall loss on the football was less than a point, so really no damage done.
Summer Of Football: Staked 5pts, -0.125pts.
Strike Zone (homes): Staked 2pts, -0.09pts.
Strike Zone (away): Staked 1pt, -1pt.
The Sportsman: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
A couple of people have asked me which services I'm trialling but I'm not going to say at this point. I want to see what happens over the next month or so, see what issues may or may not arise, and then report back. I'll mention the results in passing, but nothing specific. I'm keeping results separate from that of the main portfolio (although keeping a record of the grand total, obviously), so reporting on the blog can continue as normal.
Not much to cheer about today. On The Nose (0/3), The Market Examiner (0/4) and Summer Of Football (0/2). Doesn't read well, does it?
On The Nose: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
The Market Examiner: Staked 4pts, -4pts.
Summer Of Football: Staked 2pts, -1.5pts.
Back to work tomorrow. Joy.