(22 Feb 2015, 12:28 pm)aureolin wrote It's concerning how Customer Services can play judge, jury and executioner, when logistically, it would be pretty much impossible to gather the facts in such a short period of time. They've stated "our driver has fallen short of our standards", yet further on in the response it seems to imply that the driver has yet to be asked for their side of the story? If they've used AVL data alone as gospel, then it's a dangerous game to get into.I had skipped through the follow up to Tom's letter, not reading the follow up responses.
I have just raised a similar point in the QCS thread re the driver to all intents and purposes, being found guilty without a trial.
Quite concerning to see this happen.