Sep 12, 2016 - 09:53 PM
Although, I am familiar with this mediator I would like to stay as unbiased as humanly possible. I don't think that they deserve reporting just yet but a little coaching wouldn't hurt. Keep in mind that they could have been misguided long before now. So let's try to give them the benefit of the doubt just this once.
About the call:
The mediator may not have driven the exact determination but they did provide a credit for all that were applicable. This call would and should be considered a Firm appt. The appt that was booked during the call an exact time and/or time frame (range of time) was provided. The call back from the tech is procedural and is done as a courtesy to the client to ensure that they know that the tech is on the way. However, it has no real bearings on the status of the appt and would not make it a soft appt. Also, the call back from the customer that has already agreed to the booked appt does not suggest a follow-up. The follow-up is ONLY recognized if the appt was not set and accepted. Then, your selection would be appropriate - - No appt, no followup - -.
This sort of situation can be confusing which would cause a debate such as the one within the call. However, neither of your points of view were exactly incorrect. You both held some valid views. Leaving this call truly stuck in a grey area.
I think that the mediator's final judgment is correct. By placing a GA Cred but I think they failed to catch that the appt is still considered Firm. This was a learning experience for you all. Take note of this as you move forward. I hope this helps.
Sep 13, 2016 - 06:20 AM
I couldn’t ask for a better feedback. Your judgement is right on the money and I am really, really grateful for your help and advice.
Once again, thank you for your continued support and patience, and I look forward in receiving your guidance again in the future.
Sep 13, 2016 - 11:26 PM