| |
Alert service for elderly is flawed
• IT appears that the staff of Camden Careline emergency response service, are yet again the subject of adverse publicity with little or no defence from the bigwigs at the Town Hall.
Arguably Camden’s own failure to defend this essential service only proves beyond doubt that they are equally guilty along with the new service provider, Victor, of cost-cutting the service rather than improving the service. When an alarm call is activated by any client of the service the alarm call is actually received in the county of Kent, rather than in Camden itself.
Equally in turn Victor, the service provider, then delegates any response calls to Camden Careline operatives.
I must add all staff are very conscientious and dedicated, the staffing levels within this service run at a skeleton service, with approximately a 3,000-plus client database within Camden itself and just two members of staff to cover.
Running an essential service on loose change is to the detriment of its clients.
Camden’s role has been to increase its client base with no increase in staffing levels whatsoever.
Surely the recent criticism of the Careline service should be at the door of the call centre and service provider rather than the staff employed for many years by Camden.
My own dealings with the call centre itself is one experience I wish not to repeat. Their telephone customer operatives’ service skills are appalling.
T Wiggett, NW1
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
