BPO Client ServicesBPO Client Services

Dental Fracture

Problem:

A customer reportedly bit onto a plate-like object, causing one of the customer’s teeth to loosen and become displaced.

Intro/scenario:

The complainant bit on a hard substance, causing the customer’s tooth to become loose.  Customer got a dental quote for repairing damages on the tooth.

Investigation:

The product was uplifted and an investigation revealed that the object had no baked-on dough.  The object could not be traced to anything within the supply chain, thus the possibility of a post manufacturing contamination occurrence was more likely.

Resolution:

A dental confirmation report revealed that biting on the object in question could not have caused the specific problem.

Feedback:

A report was sent to the complainant, informing her of the dental findings.  The case was closed with no compensation given.

Dishonesty

Problem:

After a customer found a piece of plastic in a product, he escalated the matter to local newspapers.

Intro/scenario:

Customer bought a product and found a piece of plastic inside.  Customer claimed not to have received any feedback.

Investigation:

After BPO investigations, it was found that the customer did receive the necessary correspondence. The customer was using a fake name in order not to be identified.

Resolution:

Customer was found to be dishonest and caught in the act of voucher-hunting.  Our call centre has a cross referencing database to identity culprits

.
Feedback:

The complainant was advised of this and the case was closed.  No additional compensation was given.

Infestation

Problem:

Product insect infestation.

Intro/scenario:

The complainant found traces of an insect infestation in the product, and escalated the matter to a legal adviser.

Investigation:

After an acute laboratory analysis of the product, instances of the ‘Litter Beetle Larvae’ were found being present.  The Litter Beetle is a common pest in the poultry industry. A chicken house provides an ideal reproductive environment for this pesky Beetle.  The presence of this beetle’s larvae in the submitted sample, would be a direct result of the product naturally feeding on these larvae in chicken houses. After consumption of poultry pellets containing these larvae, the larvae would end up in the chicken’s crop.  During the slaughtering process, larvae (or parts of it) will attach onto portions of chicken.

Resolution:

Extra measures were introduced and put it in place to prevent a repeat of this incident.

Feedback:

The complainant received compensation, feedback was provided and the case was closed.

Foreign Object

Problem:

The product contained egg shells, small stones, and black particles that looked like tobacco. The customer approached local news organisations and, her complaint was published in a newspaper.

Intro/scenario:

The complaint was swiftly lodged. But, the complainant refused to accept reasonable feedback.  The complainant informed local news organisations and, the issue was published in a newspaper. The sample was collected for inspection and sent to the laboratory for testing. The customer care centre monitored the progress and received regular feedback.

Investigation:

This product was investigated and identified.  Residue on the machinery used in production caused a discoloured eggshell effect.

Resolution:

Product was identified as a faulty batch and was removed from the shelves prior to identification of the plant, the batch and, details of the production line that manufactured the soiled product.  It was relatively easy to identify and resolve the issue.

Doughnuts

 

 

The Problem:

It was alleged that a false claim on some packaging had been illegally stated and, was therefore misleading.  The product contained trans-fatty acids (TFAs) and, the indication was that fresh cream was used in the doughnuts under question.

Intro/scenario:

The Customer wanted in excess of R25, 000.00 in compensation.  The claim was fraudulent advertising, and being morally and ethically wrong.  After consuming quantities of the product over a number of years, it had caused the complainant cancer.

Investigation:

The product in question did not require any special labelling for detailing the ingredients, according to the ‘Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972’.  The nutritional statement on the packaging stated that the product contains fats (divided into “saturated fat”, “trans-fat”, “polyunsaturated fat” and “monounsaturated fat”.  What the law states; “South African law separates the obligation to label, from the obligation to provide a nutritional statement.”

Resolution:

All the products are labelled in accordance with South African law.  According to the packaging, it was neither misleading nor was it illegal.

Feedback:

The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence. Correspondence was sent and the case was closed with no monetary or product compensation.