Advertise with us
[January 12, 2014]
Telekom must have practical procedures [New Straits Time (Malaysia)]
(New Straits Time (Malaysia) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) I WENT to Telekom Malaysia Bhd's branch office in Petaling Jaya recently to terminate my fixed-line telephone service.
As the contract was taken under my late sister-in-law's name (she passed away 10 years ago), I was asked by the counter staff member to produce her death certificate to back up the request for cancellation.
Since we were not able to get the certificate, I was told to get a sworn statement from the Commissioner of Oaths to prove the lost certificate. My wife got the document and I provided it as per the terms and conditions of TM.
TM agreed to refund the deposit minus outstanding charges on the last bill. I was told the refund would be made by cheque, but it would be issued in my sister-in-law's name.
I pointed out that she was dead and that writing the cheque in her name was a bad idea. No banks will honour it.
But the counter staff insisted that the cheque be made in my late sister-in-law's name.
I was then instructed to bring my late sister-in-law's birth certificate after I received the cheque for TM to verify her identity and subsequently exchange another cheque in my wife's name. Is this necessary? The problem is simple. Why is TM insisting on paying the cheque in my late sister-in-law's name? What is preventing TM from using the oath statement to facilitate the cheque in my wife's name? Is the oath statement not sufficient? This is where practical approaches instead of blind operational directives help deal with predicaments at counter level.
Perhaps, the TM management may want to iron out its operational matters and put in place practical decisions to improve customer service.
Hashim Hassan, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (c) 2014 ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved.
Back To NFVZone's Homepage