Dublin Bikes Scam?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Have you contacted them about this or just chosen to go directly to boards to rant?

Yes, I've contacted them via their website (the same place where I signed up); I'm still awaiting a reply.

Also, the goal of this post was to determine *IF* I should be ranting or not. There is a question mark in the title because I'm asking and I ended up initial post with, 'Will the expiration date be updated when I first use the card....or are they really ripping me off 1/26 of my 10 euro 'annual' fee?'

drquirky wrote: »

Wow Robdude- this is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on boards.ie....judging from some earlier threads you've started its pretty clear that you think the world is out to get you...

I don't see why you'd think that; but everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I don't believe I've been treated any differently than any other customer. I'd guess this is their standard practice. I do think companies like to make money and that sometimes they do so in less than honest ways.

(Again, this is all assuming that they really don't reset the expiration date when they mail out the cards...)

I am curious though; do you think this is the worst thread you've ever seen on boards.ie because *I'm wrong* - and 50 weeks is the same as one year or because *I'm behaving poorly* in response to a small/insignificant wrong?

If you think I'm wrong; at what point do you see a problem? Is it that 50/52 is really close enough to 52/52 and if so, what percentage is the cut-off for a valid concern? Is it that ~30 cents is too small an amount to care about? If so, what is the minimum amount you think I should care about?

If you think I'm behaving poorly in response to being legitimately wronged; do you think a post on an internet forum is extreme behaviour? What is an appropriate reaction in your opinion? If someone short-changes you for a small amount, do you not correct them? What if you see that the store clerk is short-changing EVERY customer; do you act then? At what point is a wrong bad enough to take some action (even a small one?)

desertcircus wrote: »

The total number of long-term users is about 37k, which works out at a total "ripoff" of about sixteen thousand quid - assuming that everyone ends up waiting the full two weeks, which is frankly extremely unlikely (think I got mine inside of a week). On top of that, for it to be a scam they'd have to be making money they otherwise wouldn't, which simply isn't happening. The most likely explanation for this is that it was administratively simpler to start the subscription the day the account is set up, and it quite literally never occurred to a single person working on it that anybody might get annoyed about a theoretical overcharging of less than forty cent. Get annoyed about it, but don't claim it's a scam, because that's a completely ridiculous thing to say.

What word would you recommend?

According to Google:
scam: A dishonest scheme; a fraud

I would consider this a 'dishonest scheme' because they advertise a price for a specified time period of service while knowing that you can't possibly use the service for the entire duration.

In my opinion, the use of the word scam is completely valid. And I believe the web dictionary definition supports that. I don't think it's *ridiculous* to call it a scam, or that a scam requires 'making money they wouldn't otherwise'.

Still, maybe it was too strong a word and could explain people's reactions? I really don't know what word would be more applicable. I'm not saying this is a big deal or that the company should be shut down or sued or someone should be fired or we should boycott using Dublin bikes or even that I'm not going to use Dublin bikes. I still don't think it's honest or right; but at best it's a very small injustice. That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning, IMHO.

desertcircus wrote: »

The reason I think it's ridiculous to call it a scam is because there has to be some form of intent for dishonesty or fraud to exist, and I doubt it occurred to a single person that they might be overcharging people at signup on the basis of the difference in time between signup and receipt of the card. Calling it a scam necessarily involves a degree of accusation, and I don't think any such accusation is warranted in the least. Pair that with the miniscule amount of money being discussed (an absolute maximum of less than forty cent, once in the entire life of your subscription) and it boils down to "Hey, we're technically losing a Taz bar thanks to the postal system of subscription to Dublinbikes", which is akin to being annoyed about being served 5ml too little coffee a day in your daily Americano thanks to a barista who's excessively careful about potential spillages.

I agree that it'd be silly to complain about 5ml of coffee missing; but I could see lots of reasonable explanations for that like the waitress was in a rush, or like you said, she/he was being careful to avoid a spill.

But I would be upset is an entire factory producing '330 ml' cans of Pepsi were actually 317 ml. Not just one can, in error, but it was intentionally calibrated to distribute only 317 ml instead of 330; while the company advertised 330 ml on the outside of every can.

I suppose the reason why I feel this is different is because it's not an accident and there is no advantage to this system. It's a computer system that sets your expiration date to one year from the date you sign up. They could make it any date. And there doesn't appear to be any reason for one date to be better than another date (but there is an advantage to not filling a glass to the absolute top). The same website says that it can take 14 days to recieve it.

It would be just as easy to make it one year + 14 days (for example) because they say 'It will take 14 days' on their website. And then, the customer might get a few extra days. Or, they could make it one year from the first day you use your pass. Or, they could make it expire on the lessor of the first day you use your card or one year + 14 days.

Now, I find it very hard to believe that out of everyone that worked on the website, works at the company, does customer support, and the 37k long-term users (according to desertcircus) that I'm the first person to see that the current solution is less than optimal and dishonest to the customers. So, maybe it is just my attention to detail that has now exposed this (admitedly minor) problem and upon seeing my e-mail they will update their system to the benefit of their customers. Or maybe they do, in fact, update the expiration date to one year after the first use (at this point nobody has been able to confirm or deny, so this is all speculation).

bernyh wrote: »

If u sign up for 52 weeks of any service you should RECEIVE 52 weeks of service... end of! Administration aside, it has been advertised and sold as 52 weeks which is what the op should be getting. Petty or not (I don't think it's petty) he is paying for a service and should get what is advertised. Would you be happy if you paid for sky two weeks in advance, but couldn't use it until they had completed the administration, but were still charged? I think not... OP should be given what he has paid for.

Administration should not take 2 weeks and if it does they should be looking at how they are running their administration, we are living in an immediate culture, mostly computerised, which is generally immediate and don't tell me it takes two weeks to send information from one office to another office I would believe that if we were living with pigeon post.

Sorry I know I have ranted but it really irkes me when people think it's ok to give crappy service and others mock when people complain!

END OF RANT

It's also worth noting that the computer systems can grant a 3-day pass *immediately*. So they are clearly capable of it - they just don't do it for the 'year' pass.