My case against VM has been adjudicated and has not succeeded. Apparently I failed to provide sufficient evidence of poor customer service, or that VM were responsible for not processing OTPs.
Of interest part of the VM 'Defence' stated the following: "The Company, therefore, submits that it is not an issue which the Company is able to rectify; the Company is well aware of of this issue and is being dealt with by the relevant teams."
The VM Defence included partial notes of some discussions made by their customer service team. These were inaccurate and misleading. I refuted them and highlighted some of the anomalies, including the obvious contradiction in the above company quote. Obviously my version of events was not supported by transcripted notes taken at the time, and therefore appear to have carried no sway with the adjudicator.
As far as I'm concerned this is the end of the matter as VM have now admitted to CISAS that they are unable to rectify the problem. Wouldn't it all have been much simpler if VM had simply admitted that from the word go rather than simply stringing us all along with false promises and ongoing proof of their technical ineptitude?
Good luck to anyone else if they attempt to follow the CISAS route, but you will really need to consider the level of proof the adjudicator requires.
