est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

FLOW’s Customer Statement Lacks Detail

Submitted by Bud Cal It seems there is some truth in the saying that Barbadians are a bunch of timid people who prefer to grumble under their breath rather than speak out when confronted with injustices. No wonder rather than support Ms Myrie for challenging the system, we were content to castigate her and assassinate…

Submitted by Bud Cal
Fair Trading Commission
Fair Trading Commission

It seems there is some truth in the saying that Barbadians are a bunch of timid people who prefer to grumble under their breath rather than speak out when confronted with injustices.

No wonder rather than support Ms Myrie for challenging the system, we were content to castigate her and assassinate her character with impunity. Since August, Flow no longer provides customers with the breakdown of the charges international or otherwise on their bills. I find it appalling that these retrograde changes have not been the subject of debate or protest given the number of persons and businesses who frequently use the international services of the company. Approaches to the Fair Trading Commission whose name should be changed to ‘Fear’ because of its seemingly fear of the utility company – as to whether this dramatic change in service to customers is legal has not been encouraging given the lukewarm responses received such as ‘the company say you can get the information on line or you can go to the company or any outlet and get the information’. When reminded that efforts to get the information from the company or the outlets were to avail and of the difficulty experienced in trying to access the information on line and the problems it would pose for senior citizens or the computer illiterate; the discouraging response from the commission charged with representing the interests of consumers was ‘but we are investigating the matter’. How pathetic!

Government is the largest user of telephone services in the country and I wonder how the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to satisfy the Auditor General without appropriate documentation ‘that the information furnished on the claim is correct in all particulars and that the computations, castings and validity of the claim have been verified’.

64 responses to “FLOW’s Customer Statement Lacks Detail”

  1. ac Avatar
    ac

    Art you are being disingenuous in your response the first part of your response give sufficient information that gives reason as to why the bills are not itemized
    However the second detail as to luxury veers of course in detailing and confirming where the information came from
    Be that as it may the word “luxury”should be co-joined with demonstrative action or reason as to why a luxury of any kind voids out the paper billing process of itemized statements
    ac finds it hard to belive that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation

  2. David Avatar
    David

    Oh shiirt!

  3. Artaxerxes Avatar
    Artaxerxes

    You are continuing to make erroneous assumptions and wild speculations relative to my contributions and the information contained therein. This clearly demonstrates your inability to comprehend what anyone writes. The “mumbo jumbo” you spewed as an analysis of what I wrote is symptomatic of one who engages in “below the line thinking.”

    I clearly wrote: “Artaxerxes December 20, 2015 at 8:23 AM #: I was told that FLOW DOES NOT have to give customers an itemized bill, since information pertaining to call details can be accessed on line from their web-site. An itemized bill is considered a “luxury.”…..”

    Balance responded accordingly: “balance December 20, 2015 at 11:53 AM #: So was I Arta; so was I. but I have been also told that the problem is that Flow since taking over from Lime does not have the wherewithal to produce itemized bills.

    If I were to follow your line of thought, surely I have to assume you are implying Balance was being “untruthful” as well.

    Only someone who is not of reasonable thought would conclude that the two sentences in my above comments are mutually independent (i.e. the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other). It seems as though you read and interpret each sentence in a paragraph as being independent to the context of that paragraph.

    If each member of the legion “finds it hard to believe that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation,” it is your prerogative to ignore what was written and move on, rather than trying to engage in a useless and unnecessary tit for tat.

    However, the crux of the matter not lay in your “finding it hard to believe that that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation,” it is the unpleasant emotion you are experiencing, caused by the belief that this DLP administration has given FLOW the “luxury” of NOT sending itemized bills to customers. I am not responsible for initiating policy for the Ministry of Commerce…. Donville is. Hence, you should apportion blame to whom it is due.

    Take example from what you wrote: “ac December 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM #: The truth of the matter that whether one wants to believe it or not, govt has a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that no failures occur with established rules and guidelines.”

    FINALLY, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RISE TO THE OCCASION AND ADD VALUE TO THIS “DISCUSSION” BY PRESENTING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO PROVE WHAT I WRITTEN IS SHIITE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO BE A “PSEUDO” ANALYST.

    Merry Christmas, and I hope that in 2016, “before (you) put pen to paper, do the necessary research so that you can give an unbiased analysis of what anyone writes in reference to any matters.” [Reproduced from AC, December 11, 2015 at 6:08 am]

  4. ac Avatar
    ac

    Sir i also took full note of your comment where you specifically stated that the given source was the FTC in reference to your earlier comments on the issue
    Therefore i sent out a challenge to you for further clarification of the word “luxury ” and its application of the avoidance by Flow for paper billing which at present you have avoided.
    Sir if by chance you happen to stumbled upon or come across any laws or guidelines that give rise to a business using a termed inference of “luxury ” as an option where it is permissible to cease being transparent in its billing methods to the customer please post with immediacy
    I also would refer you to go back to the source the FTC just maybe they might be able to give you more clarification on the interpretation of the term “luxury” pertaining to its overall application and billing practices
    Having said all of the above ac would like to close out on a much happier and merrier note wishing you and your household a Happy Xmas

  5. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Artax
    Reflect on this riddle….
    One day long ago, in a place far away, a fellow was seen arguing extensively with his donkey. When passers-by stopped to listen in, he was hears huffing and panting and trying to explain certain matters to the donkey… while repeatedly asking of the animal..
    “Are you an ass?”

    After some brief reflection, a bushman in the crowd led the fellow off to Jenkins….to clear braying / laughter from the ass…
    The problem was NOT with the donkey (…who IS after all, an ass), but with the poor chap …who expected too much of an ass…

  6. ac Avatar
    ac

    Piss off bush shite yuh always sticking yuh stink mout up everybody rear end
    Who de hell is you to tell people how or what they should engage
    Yuh ole a.ss ripe fuh knocking over wid two big rocks
    Yuh need to mind yuh f..ing business
    Merry xmas ole boar

  7. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ AC
    Heehaw !!

  8. Artaxerxes Avatar
    Artaxerxes

    Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM #

    “The problem was NOT with the donkey (…who IS after all, an ass), but with the poor chap …who expected too much of an ass…”

    Lol, point taken, Bushie.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Let me try one final time to explain this matter as simply as I could. Since the consortium likes to “talk” about “facts” and “truth” and refer to BU as the “COURT of public opinion,” I will use a simple scenario to illustrate my point.

    Unfortunately, Bob had reason to be in an area at the same time a crime was being committed. Jean, a witness to the crime, relied on her unfamiliarity of Bob as the main determinate in vaguely identifying him as the perpetrator of the offense and gave what she thought as the necessary details to the police.
    Acting on the information received, the police see Bob and after informing him of their suspicions, asks him to accompany them to the police station. In the interrogation process Bob is asked why he was in the vicinity, as well as to account for his whereabouts at the time the crime was committed. Not being satisfied with his responses, the police decide to caution him before placing under arrest and charging him on suspicion of allegedly committing the crime.

    Remember, Bob’s constitutional rights afford him a “presumption of innocence,” (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). In other words the state is required to prove his guilt, while relieving him of the burden of proving his innocence.
    Hence, ONUS is on the police and the prosecution to PRESENT the necessary EVIDENCE to the court, which would prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, he actually committed the crime.

    You wrote you “took full note of (my) comment where (I) specifically stated that the given source was the FTC in reference to (my) earlier comments on the issue.” And suggested I stated an UNTRUTH and found it “HARD to BELIEVE” my source gave me certain information.
    Since you accused me of being a liar, in keeping with the principle of “DUE PROCESS,” you have to PRESENT to BU, EVIDENCE to substantiate your claim and PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, I am GUILTY of presenting false information to BU.

    As it relates to your comment, re: “I also would refer you to go back to the source the FTC just maybe they might be able to give you more clarification on the interpretation of the term “luxury” pertaining to its overall application and billing practices.”

    I made a statement, and as such I do not have anything to prove or clarify. The ONUS remains with you to secure the relevant information from the FTC for your own clarification.

    Wuh suh hard ’bout dis you cahn understand?

  9. ac Avatar
    ac

    How come the instigators and agitators both on the left and right of barbados political spectrum who regularly frequents BU has not voiced their appreciation on the Mahogany coconut article in which the writer has given BU a vote of confidence on its pristine accomplishment with added voices to impact the necessity for change on the political landscape

  10. David Avatar
    David

    Here is a question posed.

    Never did check the VAT on mobile services before. The question is since government needed to make legislative changes to increase the vat… Was the vat properly being charged in the first place.

    I wasn’t aware that vat was deducted from pre-paid service until very recently.

  11. pieter pieper Avatar
    pieter pieper

    In commerce, where there is competition, the public benefits ! In its absence , the public is held hostage !

  12. Yatinkitessy Avatar
    Yatinkitessy

    I had Lime for home phone and internet, and Flow for TV only . Both services were fibre optic . Then the famous merger came and that whole physical process was a mess that took over five months before the fifth technical crew could figure out what had to be done . That was Oct 15th. Since then I have been plagued with confusing bills from Flow, using my old and new account numbers, charging for the same services for the same time frames, and not crediting payments I made to the correct account. So , going into December I had a huge bill which had to be settled or I would be disconnected. I demonstrated to the clerk at their office in haggat hall that I had already paid the bill on the previous account with lime, and they agreed , but said that the accounts had not yet been merged, even though the services were, and that it was beyond their control.,So I paid the bill cash as their card machine was not working. ( no Barbados 10c stamp was put on the receipt by the way) I’ve now gotten another bill for the old account that shows a credit, and a new bill for the same service which I had to pay by Dec 31st or face disconnection. I’ve spoken to agents from both divisions of Flow, all with strange accents. None of them could resolve my problem . Monopolies are very bad for the consumer, and this is proving to be no different.

  13. David Avatar
    David

    Please refer the matter to Public Counsel.

  14. BimLady Avatar
    BimLady

    This happen in 2015 I never knew Flow has a contract with clause 12 stated we are only liable to you as set out in the agreement, can some check Flow contract and get back to me,,,any one know of a person that does case law research, please let me know

Older Comments
1 2

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading