Variable referral payments - why the mystery?
Hi there,
From reading through that ticket and checking the referral details myself I don't think there's an issue. I can see that my colleague who last replied mentioned some unspent credit which will be accounted for on the December bill.
I can see that the referral values that have been accrued have varied but unfortunately (and as I'm sure you're already aware) data protection prevents us from telling you the precise nature of the issue. One of your referred customers cancelling or having a billing issue or downgrading their account for one of a lower referral value are the most common reasons so that's something I'd advise considering.
Adam
From reading through that ticket and checking the referral details myself I don't think there's an issue. I can see that my colleague who last replied mentioned some unspent credit which will be accounted for on the December bill.
I can see that the referral values that have been accrued have varied but unfortunately (and as I'm sure you're already aware) data protection prevents us from telling you the precise nature of the issue. One of your referred customers cancelling or having a billing issue or downgrading their account for one of a lower referral value are the most common reasons so that's something I'd advise considering.
Adam
Hi Adam,
Thank you for your reassurance: after a very detailed inspection of invoices and referral token listings, I think I have got to the bottom of this issue. I conclude that the way 'above subscription' referral credits are handled could be improved. Given that we have a very clear listing of active (and dead) user identified tokens, I do not understand why credit payments cannot clearly indicate the associated token. Also, whilst 'tokens credited to match the subscription value' invoices are itemised (including part redemptions) when an 'excess' payment is made, that invoice does not similarly identify the tokens being paid in whole or in part.
In respect of my concern, I now guess that a correction has been made to my referral token count - I used to get 20 tokens credited albeit I only had 18 active tokens listed. I suspect that historically I have been getting a referral credit on my own BB & phone account and having changed my package that has been corrected, accounting for a loss of 2 tokens £1 per month
Working the referral credit value out based on this theory and my actual subscriptions, I get the same answer as does PN. 
I note in the Nov Invoice 37641453 there are 3 credits (9853480, 10010526 and 10165532) each for £0.59 - I have only one referral listed as generating £0.59 per month and that is my own business BB account (you can cross check that by associated mobile numbers). I conclude that the 3x credits in one month must be something to do with this token's absence in Sept & Oct for whatever reason. To the best of my knowledge (and as indicated on the business account's payment history), we have had no issue on our business account, thus I am at a loss to understand what has happened here.
Given the above analysis the paid balance seems correct.
I suggest that in the context of this enquiry, the CS agents could have said "With the change of your subscription package, we have corrected an historic error with your referral tokens, also there has been an internal delay in processing some of your referral tokens, however this is now fully up to date and the balance is correct". This would not have infringed any data protection 'issue' but would have better informed me,removed my reservation that the referral system is 'broken and saved a lot of time for PN staff'. I conclude the referral system is not broken, just simply it can be confusing!
Will close the ticket with some relevent feedback.
Thanks & cheers,
Kevin
Thank you for your reassurance: after a very detailed inspection of invoices and referral token listings, I think I have got to the bottom of this issue. I conclude that the way 'above subscription' referral credits are handled could be improved. Given that we have a very clear listing of active (and dead) user identified tokens, I do not understand why credit payments cannot clearly indicate the associated token. Also, whilst 'tokens credited to match the subscription value' invoices are itemised (including part redemptions) when an 'excess' payment is made, that invoice does not similarly identify the tokens being paid in whole or in part.
In respect of my concern, I now guess that a correction has been made to my referral token count - I used to get 20 tokens credited albeit I only had 18 active tokens listed. I suspect that historically I have been getting a referral credit on my own BB & phone account and having changed my package that has been corrected, accounting for a loss of 2 tokens £1 per month
Working the referral credit value out based on this theory and my actual subscriptions, I get the same answer as does PN. I note in the Nov Invoice 37641453 there are 3 credits (9853480, 10010526 and 10165532) each for £0.59 - I have only one referral listed as generating £0.59 per month and that is my own business BB account (you can cross check that by associated mobile numbers). I conclude that the 3x credits in one month must be something to do with this token's absence in Sept & Oct for whatever reason. To the best of my knowledge (and as indicated on the business account's payment history), we have had no issue on our business account, thus I am at a loss to understand what has happened here.
Given the above analysis the paid balance seems correct.
I suggest that in the context of this enquiry, the CS agents could have said "With the change of your subscription package, we have corrected an historic error with your referral tokens, also there has been an internal delay in processing some of your referral tokens, however this is now fully up to date and the balance is correct". This would not have infringed any data protection 'issue' but would have better informed me,removed my reservation that the referral system is 'broken and saved a lot of time for PN staff'. I conclude the referral system is not broken, just simply it can be confusing!
Will close the ticket with some relevent feedback.Thanks & cheers,
Kevin