 |
|
| Author |
Message |
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| That last sentence should read "...how many times have we come across situtations where our own pupil - or the moron in front..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chickengeorge
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:36 am Post subject: looking for support |
|
|
Well to add my opinion and it agrees with the most of you. Loads of really good promises none of which have been achieved by RED.
TOOK 13 WEEKS BEFORE I EVEN GOT TO DO ANY PRACTICAL TRAINING, 3 - 4 weeks between training sessions, instructor couldnt remember my progress frfom one lesson to another, once I had my five training sessions that was it no more even if i needed them, failed my mock test and could have anymore sessions to correct anything, shown how to do manouvres once and told to practice, had to employ another training school to complete my training who were excellent and provided me with a car for my test. PASSED MY PT 2 TEST thanks to Learn2pass.
Just tried to book my PT 3 training and I have had to change my training area but still have a further 13-14 weeks to complete training.
So nearly a year on still training and the loan will kick in before I finish training or even able to teach on a temp license.
I have written to Barclays to tell them to forget seeing any money, I have written to WATCHDOG but heard nothing back and I'm just about to send off letters to my Local M.P and the Transport Secretary
They have got to be pulled up, I'm surprised in todays environment that an organisation like RED is able to rip people off and even more surprised that Barclays are happy to be associated with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS, Chickengeorge and VJ,
| Quote: | | If Red gives "unsound advice" or "misleading information" or any other of those things you mentioned, then every DIT and ADI out there is also guilty of it one way or another. |
Agreed. Given the obvious financial imperative to sell training then yes, they are all possibly at it to a greater or lesser degree. I believe that since no DIT company can be trusted to tell the whole truth then it should be an industry wide requirement to do so. The law is difficult to enforce in this area because the people who need help to gain remedy are not always in a position to begin or sustain the necessary proceedings. I believe the limit on small claims is £5,000 and there is a requirement to attempt to settle before going to court which although sensible, drags out the process even more.
| Quote: | How many of us ever say:
You are a crap driver and you shouldn't be allowed near a car for your own - and everyone else's - safety.
And yet how often do we come across situations where either we - or the moron in front of us (or, if an Audi driver, initially behind us and THEN in front of us) - should have been told that? |
The difference here is that none of this is part of the process of forming a contract which is what we are talking about.
Hi chickengeorge,
Driving Instructor training usually follows a similar pattern to that you describe and it's difficult to imagine that any of the big players will do things in a significantly different way. Most instructor training relies on the customer doing lots of private practice themselves to keep the cost down.
I think 13 weeks is wildly excessive before doing any practical training and 3-4 weeks between training sessions is not ideal but they will no doubt say that they have fulfilled the contract because they provided training. Your story is all too common and sad to hear but you need to be practical so do not assume that sending Barclays a stiff letter will do you any good. They have your signature on a contract and will seek to enforce that contract if possible. You need to talk to a solicitor and get proper advice urgently BEFORE the loan period expires. It may cost you a few quid but it will at least tell you where you stand. If you can remember what you were told when you went to the sign up meeting and what they said to encourage you to sign that's good but if you can get a witness that's even better. Good Luck.
Read this one from Facebook;
| Quote: | Clare wrote at 07:20
I've taken a complaint out with Red Driving School, where do I start....
Started in March 2009, completely miss-leading sales. Given impression course would be 14-16 weeks and conducted with good continuity to allow development and learning. Was offered one lesson per month, with no ability to forward book until the previous lesson was complete. No chance of paying loan before locked into large repayment. Utter shambles.
Taken legal advice and awaiting the outcome of the review board first, because we were advised to give them a chance first. They completely ignored their own complaint procedure and made no attempt to formally reply to my complaint letters. Offered resources and 'promised' they would be made available but no proof given and I don't believe them after all the lies.
I also filed complaints to CAB and consumer direct, as well as Barclays who are investigating themselves, and the DSA. I advise you to do the same to create a wave of opinion these companies cant ignore.
Clare wrote at 07:31
What makes me laugh, when I called to follow up the complaints she said I WAS THE ONLY PERSON COMPLAINING.................. Glad We found this site now. |
Vintage Jim is on the warpath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Quote: | Re: Driving instructor training rip-off
Posted by: vintagejim55 on 16/10/09 at 11:26 PM
Gumtree: Red Scam Debate:
Hi Folks.
The late, great chessplayer Bobby Fischer once said of each opponent:
“I love to feel his ego crack” and this is precisely what’s happening now with RHPS. If he crumbles any further, nothing will remain but dust.
After another excellent post by Wide Dave in which he investigates at length, the issue of misrepresentation, explores legal precedents and also gives a highly relevant quote from Lord Denning, RotHeiss, stout defender of Red Driving School, offers the pathetic reply: “ ...every DIT out there is also guilty one way or another....” The comparison is uncanny. He is so like the wayward schoolboy, on the carpet in the headmaster’s office, desperately thinking up sneaky excuses and trying to incriminate anybody else he can think of.
RotHeiss, I picked you up the other day on your use of the word ‘we’ because it looked a bit suspicious. As I see it, you are engaged in a debate against three other people therefore Dave, RG and I can legitimately use words like ‘we’ and ‘us’ but you can’t. (Unless there’s something you’d like to tell us). I’m not a spokesman for the group because Dave and RG are perfectly capable of choosing their own words.
I’ve already defined my reasons for referring to Red as ‘your’ company and I noticed you were quick to point out to RG : “ I don’t work for ‘em..”
Going back a bit, I seem to remember your alter ego on this forum - Andy - inadvertantly typing the word ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ in the heat of the moment. Wasn’t it curious how Andy made a sudden reappearance just after I wrote a kind of spoof piece about you being an election loser ? This could mean one of two things: a) either Andy still reads this column regularly but doesn’t contribute or b) somebody tipped him off that his name had appeared. I wonder who that could have been ?
Lately on Gumtree, ‘chickengeorge’ describes his unsatisfactory experiences with Red and makes a very good point about Red’s trading methods. In a decent, civilised society with a developed system of law and justice, how on Earth can a company still get away with something which is thought by many to be offensive and obscene ?
RotHeiss, you still haven’t answered the question you were posed the other day about why you are supporting a company that is the subject of literally hundreds of internet complaints, recently featured in a TV program about scams and has also been investigated twice by your own admission. You could perhaps tell us what prompted these investigations and also why you know so much about Red’s sales figures. (see post 17/9/09)
RHPS, You have claimed repeatedly that you don’t work for Red and that Red don’t tell lies. We’ve noticed that logic isn’t exactly your strong point, so here’s what will happen if any more slips appear: the average reader will conclude that you must be working for Red in some capacity and therefore it would prove very neatly by implication that Red IS a company of liars. Any further posts on your part would simply be a waste of time. End of game. Checkmate.
Regards
vintagejim55
|
I've got to be honest Jim. I'm pretty sure Andy is a different character. He appears on several different sites with exactly the same initial post (See the UKADI site for example). RHPS is a bit like me in that he does this for fun and I can't imagine him repeatedly posting the same stuff.
Unless it concerns 'Facts'. 
Regards,
Dave.
P.S, Anyone thinking of this line of work needs to check the idea out thoroughly so why not have a look at;
http://www.squidoo.com/driving_instructors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnhkyLYbqIY
http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/drivertrainers/becomingadrivinginstructor/becomingadrivinginstructor.htm
Whatever you do, don't go to the following site, the guy wants £9.95 for a 16 page 'report' that is more than adequately covered on the squidoo website above;
http://www.drivinginstructortraininginfo.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The difference here is that none of this is part of the process of forming a contract which is what we are talking about. |
Oh yes it is! If money is changing hands on a PAYG basis then there is contract negoiation taking place on an ongoing basis. So it is very relevant.
In any case, as you said a short while ago (in different words), two wrongs don't make a right and you cannot sweep under the carpet something which is "dishonest" just because it is "different".
An ADI who complains Red is misleading or omitting information cannot side step the fact he or she is doing the same thing with pupils who are poor drivers and - if they were honest with themselves - should be kept off the roads... but he or she won't tell them and keeps training them!
As for ElderlyDimBerk... I only ever see what he posts via your copious cut and pastes. He is an isolated joke. I notice the sum total of his rhetoric this time is that I am someone else. Again.
He should get a life. Well... stop wasting what's left of this one, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
| Quote: | Quote:
| Quote: | | The difference here is that none of this is part of the process of forming a contract which is what we are talking about. |
Oh yes it is! If money is changing hands on a PAYG basis then there is contract negoiation taking place on an ongoing basis. So it is very relevant.
In any case, as you said a short while ago (in different words), two wrongs don't make a right and you cannot sweep under the carpet something which is "dishonest" just because it is "different".
An ADI who complains Red is misleading or omitting information cannot side step the fact he or she is doing the same thing with pupils who are poor drivers and - if they were honest with themselves - should be kept off the roads... but he or she won't tell them and keeps training them! |
You are probably right with the 'oh yes it is!' statement above. That quote was a poor choice of words on my part.
Part of teaching people to drive is encouragement, not demoralisation so no, I would not generally say to a learner driver that they were 'a poor driver and should be kept off the roads'. I've only met one person that I couldn't train in all the years I've been doing this and that was because of a severe underlying learning difficulty which was only uncovered during the course of a lesson. I've met others that took a lot of work but I don't lie to them. I tell them how long it will take and what the process will require of them so that they know where they stand. I took on a pupil some time ago who had been told by a local instructor that he would 'never have a driving licence as long as he had a hole in his a**e' and he passed his test a few months later so I would find it difficult to say something similar to anyone unless it was a definite fact.
So negotiating the contract is simply that process of making the customer aware of what is required and what should be delivered if everything goes to plan, then getting their acceptance. You are right about the 'ongoing' nature of all this. The 'offer' is made on a weekly basis and the 'acceptance' is made on a weekly basis based on what happens during ongoing assessment and training. As part of that you have to convince them that they are improving or you don't get the gig for very long. Change that idea slightly and tell them that they are so much better than they actually are and you have a recipe for disaster.
There are a lot of 'bent' ADI's as you have described above but I don't feel that my dealings (or for that matter the dealings of most ADI's) with customers are dishonest. A simple item such as using a progress card and filling it in honestly at the end of each lesson together with ongoing verbal appraisal would tend to cover much of that issue. If they are aware of their weaknesses and strengths as well as the general overview regarding the probable length of their training and by implication the probable cost then where is the dishonesty?
If you are saying that we should not accept people for training because they are poor drivers then what exactly is our role? Aren't we there to train them? Isn't that what we do? If we don't then we are like this character;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvkeK6_Yu0
The difference in ADI training and especially so with 'full payment up front' courses is that one party to the contract has a very good idea of what is going to happen and generally the other party, the customer, hasn't got a clue. If the customer actually KNEW the score and wanted to go ahead anyway then any contract so formed would be fair, in fact it would be just like the scenario I've mentioned above. The ACTUAL situation right now appears to be that ANYONE and EVERYONE seems to be signing up for courses based on misleading or incomplete information from companies whose advice and opinion they rely on when signing the contract.
The overriding difference between you and I is that question of openness in dealing with customers. I'm happy with my position and I find it works for me. I don't think it would work in Red's case because it would tend to turn away those people who only want the £30K and aren't exactly motivated to do this specific line of work.
But that's not my problem is it?
VINTAGE JIM PAXMAN PUSHES THE BURNING QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Quote: | Re: Driving instructor training rip-off
Posted by: vintagejim55 on 17/10/09 at 07:45 PM
Hi Dave, RHPS, Chickengeorge
Wrong again RHPS. This was the main point of my rhetoric:
“RotHeiss, you still haven’t answered the question you were posed the other day about why you are supporting a company that is the subject of literally hundreds of internet complaints, recently featured in a TV program about scams and has also been investigated twice by your own admission. You could perhaps tell us what prompted these investigations and also why you know so much about Red’s sales figures. (see post 17/9/09)”
Did dodgy eyesight make you miss this bit ? Try Specsavers.
Regards
vintagejim55
|
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not talking about people who don't learn quickly.
I'm talking about people who will never be confident or competent - and, therefore, safe - on the roads. We do get them - you and I both know that. Commonsense would suggest that they should be advised to keep off the road for their own safety (and everyone else's).
You know where this is going, Dave. Remember the suggestion that some people shouldn't be allowed to try to train as ADIs because they fail some sort of prior appraisal (and that Red should be turning them away)?
Why is is different with letting similarly inadequate people loose on the roads if they don't meet a similar prior appraisal? And who better to observe this accepability than ADIs?
Passing the test does not make someone a good driver. I'm shocked you implied otherwise (but I know you don't believe it for a second) 
Without having a lengthy legal discussion over it, the point about ongoing contract negotiations was simply that if someone has started training as an ADI on PAYG and is subsequently found wanting, do you tell them so and stop training them, seeing as the contract is still open?
I am only saying this is "dishonest" if it is argued that Red is - on the same basis of contracts etc. I am not making an independent statement - I am raising this through the connection with this main topic as already implied when I broached it.
If you continue to argue that Red is not being open with its customers then I maintain that you are not being honest with yours because of this point I have raised.
I don't think you are being dishonest, Dave. But then, I don't think Red is either. But if Red IS accused of dishonesty, then I would argue the accuser IS being dishonest (and hypocritical) if he or she is an ADI and is training people who are obviously not going to be safe on the roads.
As for AntiquatedDimPerson... "hundreds", eh?
How many people pass through Red's ranks, Dave?  The complaints are a tiny percentage - as I have said all along.
How many do we KNOW - for a fact - are just trying to weasel out and do not have any shred of a valid case? (99% of Krazy Land, 100% of OldDimChap, etc.)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
| Quote: | You know where this is going, Dave. Remember the suggestion that some people shouldn't be allowed to try to train as ADIs because they fail some sort of prior appraisal (and that Red should be turning them away)?
|
As I recall it was a SUGGESTION put up for discussion just like a lot of other things. I don't think it is necessarily the place of a driving instructor, instructor trainer or a DIT company to make the decision that a particular customer should not be allowed to train. My feeling now is that if training is what they want to do then they should be dealt with professionally and among other things that means encouraging them along their chosen path. As long as they are making an 'informed' decision then there can't be a problem with accepting them for training.
Tied in with that is the fact that they should be given sound, fair and accurate advice where possible about what they are facing and how long it will take. If a plumber came to your house and told you he could fit you a new boiler in a day, then took six days to fit it while he kept disappearing off to different jobs would you be pleased? Would you use him again or recommend him to your friends and neighbours? So if a potential instructor is given all the spiel and then finds out that the whole process is significantly more difficult, lengthy and time consuming than they were told should they be pleased? Should they complain?
| Quote: | | Passing the test does not make someone a good driver. I'm shocked you implied otherwise (but I know you don't believe it for a second) |
I assume you are referring to the quote below;
| Quote: | | I took on a pupil some time ago who had been told by a local instructor that he would 'never have a driving licence as long as he had a hole in his a**e' and he passed his test a few months later so I would find it difficult to say something similar to anyone unless it was a definite fact. |
The reason this lad wasn't making any progress with his previous instructor was because he was being shouted and screamed at during his lessons. So much so that when I first got him he used to wince when he made a mistake because he thought he was in for more of the same. I've NEVER implied, suggested or taken out an advert in the paper to say that passing the test makes a good driver, that's another invention of yours.
| Quote: | Without having a lengthy legal discussion over it, the point about ongoing contract negotiations was simply that if someone has started training as an ADI on PAYG and is subsequently found wanting, do you tell them so and stop training them, seeing as the contract is still open?
|
My view would be that you tell them the truth about where they are up to and what it will take to get to the required standard. Whether they choose to carry on is their decision. The great thing about PAYG is that they can make the decision themselves at any time if they either feel they aren't getting anywhere or the trainer is crap. Try doing that if you've paid the whole fee up front.
Myself, I had a trainer many years ago at BSM who was a master at giving objective criticism. You came out of a 'little chat' with him knowing full well what you had to do to get to standard both generally and specifically while also being convinced that you would get all the support you needed. It can be done and doesn't have to be a case of scaring off your customers. The serious prospects will appreciate the honesty.
I can't criticize any ADI trainer or DIT company for carrying on with the training of someone who probably won't make it if that person wants to carry on. We were all statistically in that boat at one point. What I CAN criticize them for is misleading the customer or misrepresenting the product they sell and thereby luring the wrong sort of people into a qualification process and a possible career that they aren't suited to.
Over to customer relations 101;
| Quote: | Luke wrote at 04:28
At first all was going well with RED driving school and my abilities at driving were improving. However, week before my exam I found out that instructor has had to leave the country for 2 months and I am left without an instructor. RED made little effort to contact except a garbled message on my phone too late for me to rearrange last lessions before the exam. After finding out and talking to RED, they effectively told me it was my fault because I had booked my test. They also stated they had no conduct over their drivers and they operate independently.
Basically RED is a screw company. It cheats both the instructor and the learner out of money and provide NOTHING in return. It is despicable both morally and practically. I now have a week left to my test and have no car to conduct it in. I feel cheated, although apparently I'm not the only one.
Jenny wrote at 04:32 yesterday
My mam started with RED and then became ill, she has been paying Barcley Card for the past 9months but has had no lessons due to her illness, she can not continue on the course and his having terrible trouble trying to get RED to pay back the money to Barcley card as she has no money and no job, this is proving to be harder than ever. RED's were only willing to give the money back if the DVLA said she had to give up her driving licence and that the Doctor had no right to say weather she was capable of driving or not doing the course!!!! They are absolutely shocking and need to be stopped!!!!!!! My mam is going through hell and its not helping her situation. Also she has had no luck getting through to head office so speak to the boss in person and the receptionist said that they 'do no call customers back' so basically they dont want to talk to her...... Theses people are inhuman
|
Regards,
Dave.
P.S, I'm having a day off at Christmas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, do you "inform" pupils that they're going to be a liability on the road?
Have you ever "informed" someone you aren't going to DIT them anymore because they aren't up to the standard?
Why should Red "inform" people they will probably fail and are throwing their money away?
It is ALL down to business, Dave. As much as you'd like to think it is a divine calling, it isn't. It is A BUSINESS. Right across the board.
No. I am referring directly to what you said:
| Quote: | ...no, I would not generally say to a learner driver that they were 'a poor driver and should be kept off the roads'...
...who had been told by a local instructor that he would 'never have a driving licence as long as he had a hole in his a**e' and he passed his test a few months later...
If you are saying that we should not accept people for training because they are poor drivers then what exactly is our role? Aren't we there to train them? |
The clear implication is that we continue to train anyone, no matter how poor they turn out to be - and yet you are arguing Red is in the wrong for doing the same with PDIs.
My point is that we inevitably teach some people who are never going to be at ease or safe on the roads. One look at the way many young people (and others) drive when they have passed proves that. And yet we continue to teach them, coming out with all kinds of "encouragement".
You're being a typical touchy-feely ADI over this, Dave. Not a realist
On one forum recently, some self-righteous bighead was spouting off about how a disabled pupil of his had passed with no previous experience and only 7 hours of training. Seven hours, Dave. Of course, this attracted the usual gushing from typical ADIs about how good it was - and no one had the guts to question how someone with only 7 hours of road experience and a load of sympathy could possibly have enough experience to go out and handle typical roads.
The trouble is - and you are doing it here - ADIs jump from one bandwagon to another as it suits them, without applying any logic or consistency. Those same ADIs mentioned above have openly criticised other ADIs in the past for being proud that an able-bodied pupil has passed in only 15, or 20, or 25 hours with exactly the same argument I have just raised. Why should a disabled person be viewed differently in purely logical terms? (In fact, a disability requiring special testing and modified vehicles would tend to suggest MORE experience is required, not LESS).
| Quote: | | The reason this lad wasn't making any progress with his previous instructor was because he was being shouted and screamed at during his lessons. |
That must be a real problem, because 90% of the pupils I pick up have said the same thing. I'm sure you are aware that you must take what pupils say with a pinch of salt a lot of the time?
Indeed, many pupils are similar to the whingers we are discussing here: they will twist things to their own ends a lot of the time, and although there might not be smoke without fire, the smoke isn't necessarily only blowing from one direction.
Dave, your two cut-and-pastes are of totally different situations.
Do you let pupils cancel at the last minute without charging them? Most ADIs don't - it is financial suicide to any business. So why should "me mam" be allowed to cancel a bank loan just through being ill?
If she is that ill then she can get credit management advice and deal with it that way. In other words: THE PROPER WAY. But no! Let's blame Red and get Saint Dave onto his soapbox again
Can't you get it into your skull that you cannot back out of a legally binding agreement that easily, and attacking the lender (or perceived lender) using lies and embellishments is not the way to do it. Nor should it be. IF YOU TAKE OUT A LOAN THEN FIND YOU CAN'T PAY IT, YOU GET ADVICE ON HOW TO MANAGE IT. YOU DON'T START TELLING LIES AND BLAMING THE LENDER, WHO GAVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND.
There is the high probability that it is a pack of lies. "Me mam" has decided she can't cut it, more than likely, and is looking for someone to shift the blame to. "Me mam" may have had an underlying health issue, in which case taking on a loan of this size is $%£&**%$ stupid! "Me mam" might not have anything other than a bad back - or not even be ill at all. Sound familiar? Like all the other cases?
Any doctor would be more than happy to report on someone's health in order to cover something like this. The only proviso being that he or she will not tell lies... Given the number of whingers trying to back out, I would have thought Red trying to get confirmation of someone's alleged illness makes sense.
As for the other one, it looks valid on the surface, but his attitude strongly suggests a total lack of communication on his side ("Red made little effort..." etc.). When I took my part 3 (NOT WITH RED), I had made a mistake with my booking date. I had arranged a car through my trainer for the original date several months down the line (which was the last date for cancellation - I'd misread the letter). A fortnight before, and when I realised MY error, the company couldn't get me a car at that short notice (nor would I have expected them to, but it was worth a try), so I went into overdrive to make sure I got one arranged within 24 hours of finding my error - independently of my trainer.
I didn't sit back waiting for them to call, then start blaming them! I did not hold it against them for one moment. I immediately acknowledged MY fault and moved forwards. But most of your followers her wouldn't do it that way, Dave. And that is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
| Quote: | So, do you "inform" pupils that they're going to be a liability on the road?
Have you ever "informed" someone you aren't going to DIT them anymore because they aren't up to the standard?
Why should Red "inform" people they will probably fail and are throwing their money away? |
I largely answered these questions in my last post when I wrote;
| Quote: | My feeling now is that if training is what they want to do then they should be dealt with professionally and among other things that means encouraging them along their chosen path. As long as they are making an 'informed' decision then there can't be a problem with accepting them for training.
My view would be that you tell them the truth about where they are up to and what it will take to get to the required standard. Whether they choose to carry on is their decision.
I can't criticize any ADI trainer or DIT company for carrying on with the training of someone who probably won't make it if that person wants to carry on. We were all statistically in that boat at one point. What I CAN criticize them for is misleading the customer or misrepresenting the product they sell and thereby luring the wrong sort of people into a qualification process and a possible career that they aren't suited to. |
I have actually said to someone that the cost of training them to Part 3 would be prohibitive and would take a long time. He carried on for a short while (as was his right) and then came to the same conclusion.
I don't think Red should turn away customers. I think all DIT organisations should accept that they have a duty to disclose the truth about ADI training so that if it does all go wrong then their hands are clean and no-one can say they were misled. If that means that fewer people take up ADI training then given the scandalously low pass rates CAN THAT BE WRONG? It would appear that very many unsuitable people are attempting to enter this line of work possibly based on misrepresentation and half-truth. If they are dissuaded from doing so by the facts then CAN THAT BE WRONG?
You are also muddying the waters by talking about CONTINUANCE of training. I am talking about what is done by DIT's when getting the signature on the contract in the first place when dealing with full payment up front courses.
| Quote: | No. I am referring directly to what you said:
Quote:
| Quote: | ...no, I would not generally say to a learner driver that they were 'a poor driver and should be kept off the roads'...
...who had been told by a local instructor that he would 'never have a driving licence as long as he had a hole in his a**e' and he passed his test a few months later...
If you are saying that we should not accept people for training because they are poor drivers then what exactly is our role? Aren't we there to train them? |
The clear implication is that we continue to train anyone, no matter how poor they turn out to be - and yet you are arguing Red is in the wrong for doing the same with PDIs. |
Once again. You are also muddying the waters by talking about CONTINUANCE of training. I am talking about what is done by DIT's when getting the signature on the contract in the first place when dealing with full payment up front courses.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The reason this lad wasn't making any progress with his previous instructor was because he was being shouted and screamed at during his lessons. |
That must be a real problem, because 90% of the pupils I pick up have said the same thing. I'm sure you are aware that you must take what pupils say with a pinch of salt a lot of the time? |
Yes, I am aware that they will routinely slag off their previous instructor and I'm not soft enough to believe everything they tell me. I've had three pupils from the same instructor and I believe the lad.
| Quote: | | Can't you get it into your skull that you cannot back out of a legally binding agreement that easily, and attacking the lender (or perceived lender) using lies and embellishments is not the way to do it. Nor should it be. IF YOU TAKE OUT A LOAN THEN FIND YOU CAN'T PAY IT, YOU GET ADVICE ON HOW TO MANAGE IT. YOU DON'T START TELLING LIES AND BLAMING THE LENDER, WHO GAVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND. |
Can't you get it into your skull that when someone walks into a group sales meeting and is so utterly and completely convinced by the salesperson that the proposition put to them CAN NOT FAIL to be successful then they may sign for a course/ loan that is entirely unsuitable for them and will ultimately lead to failure and debt?
I feel the need to refer you to my previous post;
| Quote: | | So if someone were to walk into a group meeting and be induced into signing a contract based on the false statement (representation) of someone who can be regarded as having some specialist knowledge and whose opinion they relied on, then hasn't either innocent, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation taken place? |
[b]Can't you get it into your skull that the main reason why all these people are so disgruntled and disenchanted is because they were not made aware of just what they were getting into?
SHOULDN'T THEY BE TOLD THE TRUTH?[/b]
http://www.squidoo.com/driving_instructors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnhkyLYbqIY
http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/drivertrainers/becomingadrivinginstructor/becomingadrivinginstructor.htm
Whatever you do, don't go to the following site, the guy wants £9.95 for a 16 page 'report' that is more than adequately covered on the squidoo website above;
http://www.drivinginstructortraininginfo.com/
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
| Quote: | Luke wrote at 04:28
At first all was going well with RED driving school and my abilities at driving were improving. However, week before my exam I found out that instructor has had to leave the country for 2 months and I am left without an instructor. RED made little effort to contact except a garbled message on my phone too late for me to rearrange last lessions before the exam. After finding out and talking to RED, they effectively told me it was my fault because I had booked my test. They also stated they had no conduct over their drivers and they operate independently. |
This was obviously not his mistake as in your case. In fairness this is not apparently a problem with Red instructor training but with the driving school side (sounds like a trainee instructor failing his Part 3). In my humble opinion it is a breakdown in customer relations.
In my time at BSM I had occasions where I was sent off to meet a pupil I had never seen before as cover for an ill or unavailable instructor. If I was a large company and was aware that a customer had a problem then all my efforts would go towards fixing the problem. If that had happened in this case then Luke would be overjoyed and praising Red to the rooftops. It hasn't happened and his attitude has now gone the other way.
| Quote: | Jenny wrote at 04:32 yesterday
My mam started with RED and then became ill, she has been paying Barcley Card for the past 9months but has had no lessons due to her illness, she can not continue on the course and his having terrible trouble trying to get RED to pay back the money to Barcley card as she has no money and no job, this is proving to be harder than ever. RED's were only willing to give the money back if the DVLA said she had to give up her driving licence and that the Doctor had no right to say weather she was capable of driving or not doing the course!!!! They are absolutely shocking and need to be stopped!!!!!!! My mam is going through hell and its not helping her situation. Also she has had no luck getting through to head office so speak to the boss in person and the receptionist said that they 'do no call customers back' so basically they dont want to talk to her...... Theses people are inhuman |
Customer relations again. The first bit where she says she started with Red and THEN became ill doesn't mention an 'underlying medical condition' so where you got that from I can't imagine. If you read it a little more carefully it actually says that Red WOULD NOT ACCEPT a doctors opinion but again you assume that Red can do no wrong and so you come out with this gem;
| Quote: | | Any doctor would be more than happy to report on someone's health in order to cover something like this. The only proviso being that he or she will not tell lies... Given the number of whingers trying to back out, I would have thought Red trying to get confirmation of someone's alleged illness makes sense. |
Trying to get confirmation of an illness is one thing but to stretch that into saying that if you aren't ill enough to give up your driving licence you are fit to do the course is going too far. Imagine the uproar at a large company if they said to employees that you could only have time off sick if you gave up your driving licence! RIDICULOUS!
They 'do not call customers back' which again is a customer service issue. Someone who has been paying off the loan for 9 months but not taking a lesson tends to suggest that she has been unable to because of her alleged illness, wouldn't you say?
And why are all the 'whingers' trying to back out?
Could it be misrepresentation during the sales process?
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that is sidestepping the issue, Dave. Telling "someone" the cost is prohibitive and takes a long time strongly suggests you aren't telling everyone that, and that this particular candidate was a special case - the details of which you have not divulged, but which are obviously there.
It illustrates my point on this completely: you have manipulated the story to make it fit in with what you are trying to say (i.e. implying "Yes. I DO tell them that"), and yet the underlying fact would appear to be "No. I DON'T tell them that - not as standard, anyway".
You see! Even YOU are playing the same game
| Quote: | | You are also muddying the waters by talking about CONTINUANCE of training. |
No, I'm not. I don't even know what you mean by "continuance" and it certainly isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about not telling people "the truth" (i.e. essentially "You are crap and I'm not training you anymore/at all") at what you call the open contract stage.
Insert the words "at all" if you are Red, who is supposed to assess people critically and turn them away before they even start. Insert the word "anymore" if you are an independent DIT charging a candidate PAYG and discovering they don't have what it takes.
It's EXACTLY the same thing, so it is YOU trying to artificially sanitise the waters and so give an inaccurate impression of reality
| Quote: | | ...when someone walks into a group sales meeting and is so utterly and completely convinced by the salesperson that the proposition put to them CAN NOT FAIL to be successful... |
Can't you get it into your skull that just because someone makes an accusation, it doesn't make the accusation true?
Can't you get it into your skull that people are obviously twisting the facts (in much the same way you did in the first part of your post - saying "Yes" when it is obviou the real answer is "No")?
Can't you get it into your skull that thick people hear what they want to hear, do what they want to do, and say what they want to say (however badly, and however blatant it might be)?
Can't you get it into your skull that blindly accepting what these whingers and whiners says is so obviously the wrong thing to do, you (and Krazy Land, and The Online Darby and Joan Club) are making youselves look foolish?
I mean, it's like when you see teenagers deliberately act "cool" (i.e. drive fast, walk in front of traffic, etc.), and they are thinking "I must look really good and everyone is admiring me".
In fact, everyone thinks "prat" - except for other prats, of course |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't believe everything "Luke" says, as is your wont. He is bitter and twisted and clearly not ready to be reasonable, is he? There is more to that one than just "I did everything right and can prove it, they did everything wrong and I can prove it". However, I note that you are happy to accept the latter part of that statement without any such claim actually being made
This was covered ages ago. Red doesn't chase you for your lessons. If you stop training they ignore you completely. They do not keep calling you to find out when you are going to start again.
I would also imagine that if Red gets into an argument with some idiot over the usual "want me fees back" scenario, they are hardly going to terminate the conversation by stating their position then phone back to discuss it some more. This is what you seem to be getting all angry about now.
I would also point out that the things you are actually annoyed about are somewhat different now - I just realised. You are now trying every narrow alley and twsit or turn to try and denigrate Red on something - anything - not just the thing you were in a paddy over to start with
"All" those whingers are a small percentage.
But no matter what size they constitute, just having a whinge doesn't make them right. And we know they are wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
surfingus
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: Double Standards Agency |
|
|
Hi,
I have a website www.doublestandardsagency.com
Would anyone like to share their expericences on there? Feel free to sign up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS, Surfingus,
Thanks for the invite surfingus but I don't publicly have a dig at examiners. I think it would be reasonable to say that what you are doing is distasteful. If you have an issue with an examiner then you should be complaining to your local Supervising Examiner rather than putting it across in a public forum. I don't have any problem with you having a go at the DSA but when you attack a private individual BY NAME then you are wrong and probably asking for some form of legal action. Have you any money? Carry on with your website and you should be prepared to lose it all. You may think that the internet is anonymous. It isn't.
RHPS, why don't you sit down and have a saucer of milk, it will calm you down a little.
| Quote: | | I would also point out that the things you are actually annoyed about are somewhat different now - I just realised. You are now trying every narrow alley and twsit or turn to try and denigrate Red on something - anything - not just the thing you were in a paddy over to start with |
The reason I posted those stories was simple. You and I appear to be arguing in a little cul-de-sac of our own and it may appear to a casual reader that it's all point scoring, a bit remote from reality. Posting those stories makes it plain that there are real people out there suffering on a daily basis and it's happening time and time again. We look at these stories and see different things and the truth, I would suggest is probably somewhere in the middle.
My main gripe is the way that courses are sold to wide eyed individuals who don't know what they are getting into and if those posts illustrate that the problem is real then so be it, I'll post some more as and when I see fit.
| Quote: | | Insert the words "at all" if you are Red, who is supposed to assess people critically and turn them away before they even start. Insert the word "anymore" if you are an independent DIT charging a candidate PAYG and discovering they don't have what it takes. |
YOU are bringing up the idea of turning them away before they start. I am only saying that they should be given basic information about what it takes to qualify and what their chances are. I think any DIT has a duty to disclose this basic information when selling a course since failing to do so makes the sale itself dishonest and misleading as well as contractually dubious. That is the core of our disagreement.
| Quote: | I think that is sidestepping the issue, Dave. Telling "someone" the cost is prohibitive and takes a long time strongly suggests you aren't telling everyone that, and that this particular candidate was a special case - the details of which you have not divulged, but which are obviously there.
It illustrates my point on this completely: you have manipulated the story to make it fit in with what you are trying to say (i.e. implying "Yes. I DO tell them that"), and yet the underlying fact would appear to be "No. I DON'T tell them that - not as standard, anyway".
You see! Even YOU are playing the same game |
Not at all. I routinely make it plain that qualification will be difficult, may take a considerable time depending on ability and explain the whole process and also the pass rates. I also explain what life as an ADI is like and what is needed to make a success of it. I do all this BEFORE anyone starts training and it has positive benefits. It means that those jokers who think they just have to turn up to pass will probably think twice and I think that is a good thing because I don't want to waste my time on them. For a large DIT company that thinking is wrong. They want anyone with access to money or finance to sign up because someone has to pay the advertising bills. Haven't they?
So which approach is the right one? If you think that life is about screwing cash out of the Great British Public by only giving them enough information to make an ill informed and often foolhardy decision then the approach of large training companies in whatever field is right. If you think that life is about providing people with what they are paying for honestly and in a way that is more likely to benefit both parties then my approach is right.
In the case of the trainee you mentioned, yes he was a special case. He just didn't have the personality, self belief, self discipline or speed of thought to go up against an SE(ADI) or to risk putting someone's trusting 17 year old pride and joy into a car with him. In a few years time when he had lived a little then he might have been able to cut through some of that but as he was it was going to take a LOT of training to get there Sometimes it's like that.
I wouldn't blame Red or anyone else for taking him on or keeping him on provided that he had made the decision to train/carry on training with full knowledge of where he stood. Not to do it that way is wrong.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | ...when someone walks into a group sales meeting and is so utterly and completely convinced by the salesperson that the proposition put to them CAN NOT FAIL to be successful... |
Can't you get it into your skull that just because someone makes an accusation, it doesn't make the accusation true?
|
When I repeatedly hear the same things time after time from several different sources and not just the same things but even the same phraseology such as ......talk and drive at the same time, ......pay the loan back out of your first years earnings, .......qualify easily in 16 weeks, etc, etc, ad nauseam then I start to think there may be something in it.
I know you don't, But you are a special case.
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
A little note from your mates on Facebook;
| Quote: | Stuart wrote at 15:54
Joining this group has given my lots more determination to fight these scammers as I thought I was the only idiot to be sucked in by them. |
Time and time again?
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antilvg
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't posted on here for a while now but i've been following this thread regularly. It's a shame it's got a little off topic though.
I've come back on to post again because I feel it needs to get back onto the topic - making sure people are fully aware of what they are going into when they sign a contract with Red/The Instructor College or whatever they are calling themselves now.
I used to work for them - I used to sell their courses. I'm saying no more than that because I do not want to be identified by them. I am still convinced that RHPS has something to do with the company but I just can't work out what. It's just your morals seem to fit in very well with theirs.
As pointed out, when selling you do always highlight the best parts of something. I mean, when selling a car you would say how nice it feels to drive and how the fuel consumption is good etc. You wouldn't say these cars are great but the manufacturer has already had to replace 3 of them due to the engine catching fire! It's no different with instructor training courses. BUT - what the management of LVG do is they actively encourage you to inflate the earnings potential, say they can qualify in a short space of time when we KNOW that they cant. There are countless other lies that we were always encouraged to tell. I sat in once while my manager did a 'sales presentation' and I was amazed at what he was telling people. I asked him afterwards why he tells these lies and he replied that if we didn't tell them lies we would not reach our targets and we'd all be out of a job! I don't agree with this at all as I believe it is entirely possible to meet their targets without lying or exhaggerating the truth. The problem is just 'meeting' the target is not good enough for them, hence the encouragment to tell lies! I know first hand that is is near on impossible to get out of the contract after signing (except using the 7 day cooling off period). I've heard of people who have had an accident after signing and will never be in a position to drive again let alone do the course and they've been told the course is still open to them and it's their choice if they don't want to do it, therefore no refund! Also, it is encouraged that people are not booked in for their 1st training session until the '7 days' have passed.
Regarding the training itself, the reason people struggle to get booked in for training sessions is sue to there being MORE SALESPEOPLE THAN THERE ARE TRAINERS. I think that tells you something about this company! They pay the trainers very little compared to the salespeople so you can see where most of your course fees go (and of course a big chunk of it goes on advertising).
I'm not interested in the 'whingers' as RHPS calls them but anyone who feels they have genuinely been misled into signing the course agreement or have genuinely not been given training they feel they should have been given, I advise you to do one thing: at 10.30am and 3.30pm every day they give a sales presentation. Anything as much as 20 people attend these. Turn up at the college just before these times and make your complaint very loudly. I dont think I need to explain the effect this will have. Even better if there are 3 or 4 of you that can go together. Do this every day until they offer you your money back!
Please, if you are thinking of training to be an instructor DO YOU RESEARCH before signing with anyone!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
| Quote: | antilvg
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:13 am Post subject:
I haven't posted on here for a while now but i've been following this thread regularly. It's a shame it's got a little off topic though.
I've come back on to post again because I feel it needs to get back onto the topic - making sure people are fully aware of what they are going into when they sign a contract with Red/The Instructor College or whatever they are calling themselves now.
I used to work for them - I used to sell their courses. I'm saying no more than that because I do not want to be identified by them. I am still convinced that RHPS has something to do with the company but I just can't work out what. It's just your morals seem to fit in very well with theirs.
As pointed out, when selling you do always highlight the best parts of something. I mean, when selling a car you would say how nice it feels to drive and how the fuel consumption is good etc. You wouldn't say these cars are great but the manufacturer has already had to replace 3 of them due to the engine catching fire! It's no different with instructor training courses. BUT - what the management of LVG do is they actively encourage you to inflate the earnings potential, say they can qualify in a short space of time when we KNOW that they cant. There are countless other lies that we were always encouraged to tell. I sat in once while my manager did a 'sales presentation' and I was amazed at what he was telling people. I asked him afterwards why he tells these lies and he replied that if we didn't tell them lies we would not reach our targets and we'd all be out of a job! I don't agree with this at all as I believe it is entirely possible to meet their targets without lying or exhaggerating the truth. The problem is just 'meeting' the target is not good enough for them, hence the encouragment to tell lies! I know first hand that is is near on impossible to get out of the contract after signing (except using the 7 day cooling off period). I've heard of people who have had an accident after signing and will never be in a position to drive again let alone do the course and they've been told the course is still open to them and it's their choice if they don't want to do it, therefore no refund! Also, it is encouraged that people are not booked in for their 1st training session until the '7 days' have passed.
Regarding the training itself, the reason people struggle to get booked in for training sessions is sue to there being MORE SALESPEOPLE THAN THERE ARE TRAINERS. I think that tells you something about this company! They pay the trainers very little compared to the salespeople so you can see where most of your course fees go (and of course a big chunk of it goes on advertising).
I'm not interested in the 'whingers' as RHPS calls them but anyone who feels they have genuinely been misled into signing the course agreement or have genuinely not been given training they feel they should have been given, I advise you to do one thing: at 10.30am and 3.30pm every day they give a sales presentation. Anything as much as 20 people attend these. Turn up at the college just before these times and make your complaint very loudly. I dont think I need to explain the effect this will have. Even better if there are 3 or 4 of you that can go together. Do this every day until they offer you your money back!
Please, if you are thinking of training to be an instructor DO YOU RESEARCH before signing with anyone!
Quote:
http://www.squidoo.com/driving_instructors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnhkyLYbqIY
http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/drivertrainers/becomingadrivinginstructor/becomingadrivinginstructor.htm
Whatever you do, don't go to the following site, the guy wants £9.95 for a 16 page 'report' that is more than adequately covered on the squidoo website above;
http://www.drivinginstructortraininginfo.com/
|
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave, hasn't it occurred to you - even a LITTLE bit - that someone with a name like "AntiLVG" is not likely to be willing to focus on anything but the negatives? It's no different to "AntiRed" or any other such name.
The motives are betrayed by the name
The only thing AntiLVG is saying is "[ make ] sure people are fully aware of what they are going into when they sign a contract with Red/The Instructor College or whatever they are calling themselves now."
The bold part is fair enough (as long as it deals with facts and not fantasy borne out of hatred). But the part in red just underlines the ulterior motives and the fact that the fantasy really is there.
Are you not even in the least bit curious about why he is an ex-employee, why he wants to remain incognito, and why he is just anti? AT the very least he will just be another solo-DITter trying to trash the opposition. In the absence of this reliable knowledge, doesn't it make you want to tread a little carefully in how much hook, line, and sinker you fall for it this time? Just once, don't you want to avoid the perils of jumping over the hedge without looking properly - and missing the 50 foot drop?
I'd draw your attention (again) to the uber-moron known as Macca, who trawls (or should it be trolls) the driving forums posting libel against LVG. What he fails to reveal is that he was once a close associate of one of the Lets Drive executives, and they had a major spat. He has pursued this ex-colleague (and LVG) for years. It is a vendetta. Oh, yes. And he is a senior director of LDC, which is in direct competition with LVG.
Yet anyone listening to him not knowing these facts (or choosing - as you do - to deliberately not worry about them) would find themselves very poorly informed.
Facts, Dave. Facts
Red is not breaking any laws.
Red is not lying to anyone.
Red's training is not inferior.
Red turns out ADIs.
This isn't a divine profession.
Anyone can become an ADI.
If someone fails it is their own problem and most just live with it, then move on.
If people don't like the way Red advertise, that's their affair. But this is not a Divine Profession and allegedly inflated claims are not illegal as long as they are not out and out lies.
As for AntiLVG's self-righteous "let's get this back on track" babble... yes, I guess we DID move away from a bunch of losers just wanting to blame Red for their own stupidity and lack of drive. But only by the addition of facts.
I suspect AntiLVG is about to embark on another crusade... further attempts to 'prove' that Red is The Evil Empire. He hasn't made a very good start with a username like that Should be fun if he chooses to continue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Krazy Land?
Dave, they haven't got you doing PR for them now, have they?
Look at how many members they have. Then look at how many posts there are. Then look at how many of those posts are actually from unique disgruntled people (individual members). Then look at how many of them are obviously totally invalid along the lines of what I have been saying all along (heck, I quoted most of them on here).
It won't even reach double figures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get real will you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that Double Standards Agency gag creases me every time I hear it. Not
On the main forums it is people like OldDimBoy (but who actually qualified as instructors, albeit when cars were still powered by real horses) who spout that one. Just like the B$M gag (gosh, my sides are splitting just by typing it )
Don't you find it worrying that people with that kind of mentality are allowed to become and remain ADIs? What idiots they must be, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, Dave, just as people suspect that I work for Red - in the same veing, just consider who other people posting on here might work for.
It could be anyone. LDC for example |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antilvg
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RHPS, I don't know what you are talking about......you are the one who goes on and on about FACTS. All I am doing is making those FACTS clear. Yes, thats what they are FACTS. Like it or not, they are all FACTS. Did I mention they were FACTS?!
As for your other comments, fantasy plays no part in my comments. I may be Anti LVG but I have my own reasons for this. BUT this does not change the FACTS that I have highlighted on here.
Just to stick the knife in, so to speak......
| Quote: |
Wide Dave
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject:
Hi RHPS,
Quote:
antilvg
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:13 am Post subject:
I haven't posted on here for a while now but i've been following this thread regularly. It's a shame it's got a little off topic though.
I've come back on to post again because I feel it needs to get back onto the topic - making sure people are fully aware of what they are going into when they sign a contract with Red/The Instructor College or whatever they are calling themselves now.
I used to work for them - I used to sell their courses. I'm saying no more than that because I do not want to be identified by them. I am still convinced that RHPS has something to do with the company but I just can't work out what. It's just your morals seem to fit in very well with theirs.
As pointed out, when selling you do always highlight the best parts of something. I mean, when selling a car you would say how nice it feels to drive and how the fuel consumption is good etc. You wouldn't say these cars are great but the manufacturer has already had to replace 3 of them due to the engine catching fire! It's no different with instructor training courses. BUT - what the management of LVG do is they actively encourage you to inflate the earnings potential, say they can qualify in a short space of time when we KNOW that they cant. There are countless other lies that we were always encouraged to tell. I sat in once while my manager did a 'sales presentation' and I was amazed at what he was telling people. I asked him afterwards why he tells these lies and he replied that if we didn't tell them lies we would not reach our targets and we'd all be out of a job! I don't agree with this at all as I believe it is entirely possible to meet their targets without lying or exhaggerating the truth. The problem is just 'meeting' the target is not good enough for them, hence the encouragment to tell lies! I know first hand that is is near on impossible to get out of the contract after signing (except using the 7 day cooling off period). I've heard of people who have had an accident after signing and will never be in a position to drive again let alone do the course and they've been told the course is still open to them and it's their choice if they don't want to do it, therefore no refund! Also, it is encouraged that people are not booked in for their 1st training session until the '7 days' have passed.
Regarding the training itself, the reason people struggle to get booked in for training sessions is sue to there being MORE SALESPEOPLE THAN THERE ARE TRAINERS. I think that tells you something about this company! They pay the trainers very little compared to the salespeople so you can see where most of your course fees go (and of course a big chunk of it goes on advertising).
I'm not interested in the 'whingers' as RHPS calls them but anyone who feels they have genuinely been misled into signing the course agreement or have genuinely not been given training they feel they should have been given, I advise you to do one thing: at 10.30am and 3.30pm every day they give a sales presentation. Anything as much as 20 people attend these. Turn up at the college just before these times and make your complaint very loudly. I dont think I need to explain the effect this will have. Even better if there are 3 or 4 of you that can go together. Do this every day until they offer you your money back!
Please, if you are thinking of training to be an instructor DO YOU RESEARCH before signing with anyone!
Quote:
http://www.squidoo.com/driving_instructors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnhkyLYbqIY
http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/drivertrainers/becomingadrivinginstructor/becomingadrivinginstructor.htm
Whatever you do, don't go to the following site, the guy wants £9.95 for a 16 page 'report' that is more than adequately covered on the squidoo website above;
http://www.drivinginstructortraininginfo.com/
Regards,
Dave.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And there you go:
| Quote: | | I may be Anti LVG but I have my own reasons for this |
This is exactly what I said.
You may not realise it, but those "reasons" make you unreliable as a source of "facts".
What it boils down to is what people think is right.
I don't have a problem with people trying hard to sell me things - I just don't fall for it. Other people do have a problem with it. Que sera.
Red isn't breaking any laws and it isn't lying. If it was it would be prosecuted. People just think it is breaking laws and think it is lying - for whatever personal reasons they may have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wide Dave
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 367
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi RHPS,
I can't make my mind up.
In the Red corner we have you with your balanced arguments, your perfect logic and your pure, incorruptible facts.
In the AntiRed corner we have AntiLVG with his biased arguments, flawed logic and total lack of any provable factual content.
I don't know which way to turn.
I know what I'll do. I'll find a celebrity chef and ask him what I should think!
Or I could just go with the majority view and take into account all the people who are disgruntled, up to their necks in debt and in many cases embarrassed that they were taken for complete suckers by the DIT industry.
Who AntiLVG is and where he is coming from is largely irrelevant. What he says is very relevant.
Who you are and where you are coming from is largely irrelevant. What you say is very relevant.
Put your two views together and see who the majority of people believe.
I can't imagine that anyone who has followed this thread and/or others and read the information on sites like squidoo and the DSA site would give much credence to anything YOU say because of the crippling bias and prejudice you have saddled yourself with since the early days of this forum. We know that people see the TV adverts. We know that people go to the presentations. We know that they are somehow convinced by what goes on in those meetings to part with large amounts of either their own or someone else's money.
Every single word of what AntiLVG says in his post fits that scenario.
On the other hand we have you telling us that Red doesn't tell lies, doesn't mislead anyone and supplies training in the right amounts and of the right quality at the drop of a hat.
If that really is the case then where do all the complaints come from about poor training availability and crap customer service? Are they ALL made up? Are they ALL bogus? Are they ALL the product of discontented mischief makers who just couldn't hack it?
They were ALL convinced they could hack it at one point weren't they? The day that they walked out of that presentation.
Who convinced them?
Why did they convince them, because they thought they could qualify, thrive and prosper as working ADI's?
Or was it because they thought they would probably fail miserably and they could make even more money out of them that way? Why spend money postponing the inevitable?
Yep, I read AntiLVG's post twice and found myself nodding in agreement. I thought it was a bloody good post and if the only way you can attack it is to go for the credibility of the poster rather than the content of that post then I don't know where you can go from here, I really don't.
It's your standard tactic again. His reappearance has rattled you and you can't help but go for a crappy little side issue like his username. You could very easily call yourself Big Red based on the content of your posts and then you would have to attack yourself just to be even handed.
Address the arguments. Anything else is weak.
Regards,
Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RotHeissPfefferStreber
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bavarian Forest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the Red corner we have you with your balanced arguments, your perfect logic and your pure, incorruptible facts. |
And it only took 54 pages for you to get it
Dave, someone with a name like AntiLVG or AntiRed is NOT going to be a reliable source of information. That's another fact for you The rest of your post - based on the assumption that AntiLVG is someone who occupies the other side of Mount Olympus from you - is therefore pointless and totally flawed. As usual.
The majority are not disgruntled. You do not have enough information to make that statement. What you have done (as usual) is miss out some stuff to make it sound the way you want it to.
The only thing you could say from the evidence you have is that the majority of disgruntled punters are... well, disgruntled. A bit circular, isn't it?
What you are deliberately ignoring is the fact that the disgruntled punters (and I mean those with even a passably legitimate reason for being disgruntled, notwithstanding the likelihood of them lying to try and back out of the legally binding agreement) are actually a small minority of the number who pass through Red's clutches.
Incidentally, I noticed in yesterday's press that LDC is now advertising and it's advert is virtually identical to Red's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Gumtree
Search
Register
Log in
Profile
Memberlist
FAQ
