gpg: Signature made Tue Sep 8 12:40:57 2020 UTC
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Good signature from "Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andrew James Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (UKUUG) <andy.smith@ukuug.org>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (BitFolk Ltd.) <andy@bitfolk.com>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Linux User Groups UK) <andy@lug.org.uk>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Cernio Technology Cooperative) <andy.smith@cernio.com>" [unknown]
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the feedback.
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 09:38:52AM +0100, Chris Smith via users wrote:
> c) You put a flag on all accounts preventing setting up a Direct
> Debit if there are outstanding invoices. This forces action by
> the user either to pay all invoices then set up a DD, or call you
> to have the flag removed and pay everything by DD. Either way the
> user should be in no doubt about what happens as a result.
To be honest this just sounds like it's making it harder to pay and
encouraging support interaction, which is taking things in the wrong
direction. The present confusion seems to happen because people WANT
to pay - and think they have arranged to!
A comment that a number of people have made now is that they think
people might not read the text about "this only pays for FUTURE
invoices" even if it's right there on the bit of the page where they
have to authorise the mandate. Perhaps we should send an email too,
at the point where the mandate is authorised?
> Andy, I really appreciate your attitude towards customers, but sometimes I think you do try too hard.
Well if it causes confusion it means the process isn't good enough.
I can berate people for not reading it properly but ultimately it's
my problem to fix.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
