- A series of small errors builds up a tidy reimbursement
- Telephone system maintainer overcharging client
- Dealer did not deliver what was promised
As part of our utilities management service for one of our large clients, Business Cost Consultants identified pricing errors on the client’s telecoms bills for several of its sites. Despite this client having many lines, the thorough monitoring of the billing by the Business Cost Consultants analysts picked up on several small errors and overcharges that the client might not have noticed itself.
In 2003, a series of eight relatively small billing errors by the client’s telecoms company and the line provider built up to a reasonable sum. Business Cost Consultants pursued every claim on the client’s behalf and negotiated a total reimbursement of £3,125 for that year on their telecoms alone. Several thousand more was received for the client’s other utilities.
As a result of their initial audit of utility bills, Business Cost Consultants identified that this client, a service company in the North of Scotland, had been double charged by their telephone maintenance company for five years.
Within three weeks of being appointed, Business Cost Consultants obtained a rebate from the telecoms maintainer on the client’s behalf. The client received a cheque from the maintainer for almost £2,000.
One of our clients with about 150 mobile handsets negotiated a very competitive, but complex deal with a mobile phone dealer. A few months later he came to us because he did not seem to be getting what had been agreed. He was actually paying out more than he had done the previous year. Because of the complex billing system he was not able to quantify his overcharges.
Our detailed analysis of his bills proved that our client was being overcharged on a number of elements of the deal originally negotiated. We had to confirm in writing all the elements and prices in the deal, negotiate with the sub-dealer, the dealer and the network provider in order to get the client almost £20,000 he had been overcharged. Then we had to put the contract back out to tender to ensure that he had a more competitive deal with a reputable supplier on terms that could be more easily monitored.