Comedy of Errors

Did I mention how much I currently hate COMET because of their after-sales approach? Andy does too for a similar experience 5 years ago. Stay clear and support a local supplier even if more expensive is our advice.
This, along with the obviously congruent client care element of Peer Review, got me thinking about a longer post on the subject. This was partly inspired by the high standard of service I have received from London CABs (yes that’s right all the CAB drivers I used this week were helpful, friendly and efficient without a single inappropriate political comment to boot), this hotel and our bank (admittedly putting a mistake of theirs right but apologising in a polite manner in a very speedy response) this week. COMET don’t do sorry it seems.
So I was thinking about this when Andy rang with this gem.
Before I divulge – remember the PR scoring scale:
1 Excellent
2 Competence Plus
3 Competence
4 Below Competence
5 Failure in Performance
When you get to the end of the post you can put your grade in the comments box.
A client firm has had its PR result. Under separate cover the files arrived back today. They are in the original storage boxes. Unfortunately they are not this firm’s files rather they belong to another CDS supplier. Where their files are is as yet unclear. 1- 5 you are the Judge.
N.B. Whilst pondering your assessment remember that a client firm of ours received a “major area of concern” at assessment for sending a letter to a client at his previous bail address after being remanded.

About Author: SP

One comment on “Comedy of Errors

  • Is it not a major area of concern that:
    (1) A letter was sent to an address where the client no longer resided, thereby putting at risk confidentiality.
    (2) The letter was presumably never sent to client subsequently so that he was not communicated with either at all or in a timely fashion. What about advice on subsequent bail applications etc…
    (3) That the firms systems are not robust enough to properly process changes of remand status.
    (4) That out-going post was not adequately supervised. If it had been this would not have occurred. A major breach of Solicitors Practice Rule.
    Is it not a major concern that the public paid for this wholly wasteful letter?
    Just a thought.