The Angry Customer, the Old Router and the Shift That Ends in Twenty Minutes
Ravi works on web chat support for a broadband ISP and handles up to three chats at once. At 17:40, with two chats already open and his shift ending at 18:00, he receives a chat from Mrs Sharma, 62, a retired schoolteacher. In the last five days her connection has dropped four times; she has already called the helpline twice and was told both times that the ticket is being worked on. Her plan advertises 100 Mbps but her own speed test, pasted into the chat, shows 12 Mbps. She writes in capitals: 'I am paying for 100 and getting 12. I will post this everywhere and cancel. Give me your senior's number now.' Ravi can see that her router was supplied by the ISP in 2016, that a technician visit is due on the 9th but is not confirmed, and that his authority is a free technician visit within 48 hours and a credit of up to Rs 150; anything above Rs 500 needs a supervisor. The CRM note from her last call reads: 'customer abusive, call closed'.
1. Set out the goals of Ravi's first two messages and give a short example of each. Name four things he must avoid saying, with the reason for each, and explain what he should do about his remaining two chats and his shift end.
Read the worked answer
Goals of the first message
Acknowledge the experience, take ownership for the company rather than the previous agent, prove he has actually read her case, and give one concrete next step with a time. She has been told twice that 'the ticket is being worked on', which she hears as 'nobody is doing anything', so generic reassurance will make things worse.
Example: 'Mrs Sharma, four disconnections in five days and 12 Mbps when you pay for 100 - I would be frustrated too. I can see both of your earlier calls and the open ticket. Give me three minutes to check the technician slot for the 9th and confirm it in writing to you, then we will deal with the speed test you have sent.'
Goals of the second message
Convert the promise into something verifiable: the visit confirmed, a reference number, what the technician will test, and what happens next if the fault persists. A commitment without a reference number is just another ticket being worked on.
Four things not to say
- 'Please calm down' or 'stop typing in capitals' - it tells her the tone is the problem when the disconnection is. The capitals are a symptom; answer the content.
- 'It is your old router' - even if true, it sounds like blame, and the router was supplied by the ISP. Raise equipment later, with evidence from the technician's line test.
- 'As per policy...' as an opening move - policy explains limits, it does not acknowledge a fault. Lead with what can be done.
- 'The previous agent closed the call because you were abusive' - it invites a justified complaint about being dismissed and proves the company was already aware. Instead, flag that note internally as a service-quality issue; a customer with four faults in five days being logged as abusive is a coaching and process problem, not a customer problem.
The shift end
Do not rush her to close the chat to clear the queue. Flag the chat for handover, brief the next agent in the notes with the confirmed visit, credit and promised callback, and tell her plainly that a named colleague will continue from here if the chat runs past 18:00. Handing over with a written summary protects her and prevents her from telling her story a fourth time.
2. Decide what Ravi should offer and whether to escalate. Justify the credit amount, explain what the escalation should be based on, and list what must go into the CRM note before the chat closes.
Read the worked answer
What to offer
The free technician visit within 48 hours is squarely within authority and is also the only action that can actually fix a line fault. Given the 9th is the next day, he should confirm it, give her the reference number, and tell her what the technician will test (line, ONT, Wi-Fi) so she knows the visit is not a courtesy call.
The Rs 150 credit is appropriate as an immediate goodwill gesture for four days of disruption - it is small enough to grant without approval, it arrives now rather than after a long process, and it should be described honestly as a one-time credit rather than full compensation.
Why escalate anyway
The escalation should be triggered by the situation, not by her anger. Four faults in five days is a repeat fault, which usually needs the field or network team, not chat support. And she is likely entitled to a pro-rata rebate for the outage days, which can exceed Rs 500 and therefore sits outside his authority - so he should raise a supervisor case for the rebate rather than promise, refuse, or quietly ignore it. Escalating because a customer is angry teaches agents to escalate whenever someone shouts; escalating on 'repeat fault plus possible rebate above limit' is a rule that can be applied consistently.
CRM note before closing
- Verbatim complaint in her words, not a summary that sanitises it.
- Speed test result of 12 Mbps with the timestamp and how it was measured.
- Both prior ticket IDs, the dates, and the fact that the 'abusive, call closed' note exists - flagged for review.
- Visit date confirmed, reference number, and what the technician will check.
- Credit of Rs 150 granted, with the reason and the fact it is one-time.
- Supervisor case raised for the pro-rata rebate, with the case ID and the promised response time.
- What was promised and by when, plus the route back if the fault recurs after the visit.
A note like this is what lets the centre judge whether it owes a rebate and lets the next agent continue without asking her to repeat everything.
3. She asks for Ravi's personal mobile number so she can call him directly, and demands a written guarantee that she will get 100 Mbps. Draft his reply and explain the reasoning behind both refusals.
Read the worked answer
Draft reply
'Mrs Sharma, I understand why you would want one person to call. I cannot share my personal number, and it would not serve you well - I am on chats, my phone would not be answered while I am working, and anything agreed outside this record is invisible to the technician and to my supervisor. What I can do is give you a case reference and a scheduled callback: I will note that you prefer to be called, and the visit on the 9th will be confirmed to you in writing today. If the speed problem continues after the technician's test, quote this reference and the case is picked up where we left off.'
Why refuse the personal number
It sounds like warmth but creates real harm on both sides. For the customer: an unanswered personal phone is a broken promise, and anything agreed off-record cannot be honoured by the next agent or the technician, so she loses her own evidence. For Ravi: an off-system commitment becomes his personal liability, and a customer who has his number can contact him at any hour. Offering a case reference and a scheduled callback preserves exactly the reassurance she is asking for - a named, continuous route - without any of that.
Why refuse the 100 Mbps guarantee
He cannot honestly give it, and a guarantee he cannot keep converts one complaint into a regulator complaint and a credibility loss. The reasons are technical: broadband plans describe speeds 'up to' a rated figure; the 100 Mbps figure is typically a line-rate or wired figure while a speed test over Wi-Fi on an eight-year-old router measures something else; and line length, contention and in-home wiring all affect the result. His router being from 2016 makes the Wi-Fi measurement especially unreliable as evidence of the line.
What to commit to instead
Commit to measurable, checkable outcomes: a technician visit within 48 hours, a line test at the premises, a speed measurement at the router over a wired connection rather than over Wi-Fi, and a clear statement of what speed her line and equipment can realistically deliver. If the line genuinely cannot deliver the advertised speed, the correct answer is a plan change or a rebate - not a guarantee bolted onto an unsuitable plan.