Telephone banking - audit trail??

zppp

ilesmark wrote: »

ha! Who said anything about the FOS? If this exercise reveals written proof they've lied to me, it'll be a civil action for the tort of deceit.

But let's not jump the gun until I've had the answer to the request.

I think you missed the point of my post before. If it transpires that there is a record, what does that prove exactly? If there is no recording of the conversation it is your word against theirs. All it proves is you called the automated telephone banking. It doesn't prove the conversation you had.

As for civil action for the tort of deceit, I don't really see how it applies and what you are trying to achieve as a result. You cannot sue or take civil action unless you can prove purposeful dishonesty and it was intentional. I suggest you seek legal advice if you want further information

bengal-stripe

ilesmark wrote: »

......before getting through to the idiot in customer 'service'.

ilesmark wrote: »

ha ha - if you mean 'did they put the phone down on me because I was shouting and swearing?' then absolutely not.

I presume, name-calling is not in your nature.

ilesmark

No no, I didn't miss the point of the post before. They denied in the letter that I had accessed my account AT ALL that day, not merely that the conversation had taken place.

What this subject access request is designed to do - if it works - is to show that they told me something untrue in saying they had no record of having me my account on the day in question. 1 letter from the bank saying I didn't access my account that day, another from the same bank saying that I did. That'll look like someone in the complaints department was telling porkies, won't it? What was said in the phone conversation isn't actually relevant for these purposes. I'm not particularly bothered about the phone conversation, nor about having the phone put down on me, but i AM bothered about the bank charges. If I can't get them for that via the old, direct route, maybe this is another, indirect route.

The tort of deceit is made out when 'a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it.' And I DID act in reliance - based on that factual denial, I didn't contact the FOS as I didn't believe I had a leg to stand on, thereby denying myself a remedy for the bank charges.

Anyway, the whole point of me starting this thread was to check whether accessing one's bank a/c via telephone banking left a record. The answer very early on was yes, so I will chuck the request in and see what comes back. Thanks for all the peer reviews, and I'll let you know.

Mark

zppp

ilesmark wrote: »

The tort of deceit is made out when 'a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it.' And I DID act in reliance - based on that factual denial, I didn't contact the FOS as I didn't believe I had a leg to stand on, thereby denying myself a remedy for the bank charges.

I don't see how it has an bearing on your bank charges. You were complaining about service, not bank charges, thus the remedy for bank charges is incorrect. But, you don't want to argue, so we'll see how it goes shall we?

pmduk

If banks were sued every time they lied to a customer, most would have gone bust many years ago. A certain Spanish bank comes to mind.

ilesmark

bengal-stripe wrote: »

I presume, name-calling is not in your nature.

ha ha - I think a saint would have felt like calling this person an idiot after that phone call. But no - I can b1tch about call centres as we all can, but of course I don't say such things to their faces.

slopemaster

pmduk wrote: »

If banks were sued every time they lied to a customer, most would have gone bust many years ago. A certain Spanish bank comes to mind.

Indeed. But if they were ocasionally sued, perhaps they would do it less often?

ilesmark

Hi all

Have now found the offending letter and need to qualify what I am asking advice on.

It says in fact that there is no record of me having a conversation on the date in question with the department in question. Unfortunately my earlier assertion that it denied me having accessed my account at all was somewhat adrift :eek:

SO - what I now need to clarify, if any of you can assist, is whether, having accessed telephone banking, entered one's account number and answered all the security questions correctly, there is any further footprint / audit trail / record of what happens next ie what department you get through to, whether any conversation takes place, who dealt with it / what actions take place / whatever.

Thanks in advance

Mark