Thank you for your message @vespaash2. It's good to be kept informed on developments, instead of having to read it elsewhere on the internet.
I must also say "congratulations" on having the backbone, as a company to face the challenge of the publicity, that such mistakes coming to light brings.
But, don't do it again! 🤦🤦🤦
Well @vespaash2 while I do congratulate you for making this post (and somebody had to), it is apparent that giffgaff is unable to learn from its mistakes
Twice in this thread your attention has been drawn to a serious and ongoing issue related to unwarranted banning of members, closing accounts and subsequent denial to give a PAC code
Unless I have missed something there has been no response on this matter, either here or in the linked thread. I see that @ujo55 did suggest that perhaps this may be the next complaint to OFCOM
Burying your corporate head in the sand is no solution. I was hopeful that as CEO you would be willing and able to initiate some more rapid action, but the absence of a response makes it looks like you don't consider it important and don't care
Perhaps you would like to consider the example told by @jaymailsays in message 117 of the other thread. It concerns a member who was banned for sending messages to friends, updating them on the condition of someone who was sick in hospital.
That doesn't look good does it ?
This is a really important issue for us to solve, and after seeing this post, Ash asked me to update you on how we're addressing it. As Henna mentioned in the thread, alongside multiple updates from the team on our progress, there's an important balance to be struck here. It's very hard to read such emotive stories from members about how the current policy has affected them, and we need a system that accounts for situations like these. We need to be careful, though, that we're not introducing any leeway that spammers will be able to take advantage of, as not everyone uses our network with the best intentions. At the moment, if anyone feels that they've been caught by this SIM suspension inappropriately, our agent team will be able to look at the case and lift the suspension where necessary.
Our development teams are currently working on a solution that will better define legitimate spikes in usage from genuine members and be able to separate them from fraudulent usage, so that we can give a more tailored approach, and we'll make sure that we provide a further update on that thread when we're able to implement the change.
Many thanks for posting the above response and I am pleased the issue of erroneous bans is considered important by Ash
With CEO support I am sure a quick solution can be found and the advice to agents to look at cases and lift suspensions where appropriate will be welcomed. I assume that thisalso means bans can also be reversed.
How will the decision on which charities to donate to be decided?
The charities have already been decided and the donations made. The money was evenly split between the 10 charities that reached the voting stage of the last two payback periods
Our most dedicated members nominate charities every six months to be the recipient of Payback donations, and we will be splitting this amount evenly between the ten charities that have been shortlisted over the last twelve months, to make sure it is going to causes that giffgaff members care about.