Natwest / RBS IT Failures

JuicyJesus

Agricolae wrote: »

Eventually the worst "offenders" may be identified as abusing the complaints system and get the boot with a letter explaining that the bank feels the relationship has broken down or "we do not think we can offer you the level of service you seem to expect from us".

This however is predicated on the assumption that they cannot simply reject the complaint as it's baseless. If it isn't baseless and is in fact justifiable, then there is a complaint to answer and the customer can't really be held responsible for that, can they? That's what stclair seems to be talking about.

Put simply, it's not the customer's fault if they have justifiable complaints against their bank. It's rather more the bank's responsibility to learn from mistakes to prevent future complaints, no?

Agricolae

JuicyJesus wrote: »

This however is predicated on the assumption that they cannot simply reject the complaint as it's baseless. If it isn't baseless and is in fact justifiable, then there is a complaint to answer and the customer can't really be held responsible for that, can they? That's what stclair seems to be talking about.

Put simply, it's not the customer's fault if they have justifiable complaints against their bank. It's rather more the bank's responsibility to learn from mistakes to prevent future complaints, no?

I do agree they should learn from mistakes to prevent complaints, however I think the current system in place at some banks actually causes the number of complaints to increase, not through incompetence (though this is both a related and a separate issue) but through encouraging customers to complain when there may not be a case to answer.

I am certain that in some banks complaint handlers are encouraged not to carry out anything other than the most perfunctory of investigations (probably because there are a lot of complaints and not enough complaint handlers). Where this fails to identify a clear fault or clear mistake or misunderstanding on the customer's part, the approach taken is a shrug of the shoulders and an admission that "well, we probably did do something wrong".

The bank then upholds the complaint and pays out when perhaps it shouldn't have. In some cases it knows it shouldn't have, but would rather avoid an ombudsman case fee.

---

With that ramble over, I guess my point is that a lot of complaints probably are baseless but some banks don't bother to investigate and end up upholding them when they shouldn't.

This leads to negative consequences and the occasional person complaining (funnily enough) when their balance hits zero and payday hasn't come round yet.

mulronie

The current zeitgeist of monetary compensation for even the most minor complaints is simply a commercial reaction to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Don't forget, a complaint that makes it to the adjudication stage at the FOS costs a bank £500 - regardless of the FOS's decision.

As well as compensating genuine customer loss, banks thus also budget large amounts to "shut up" petty folk who would otherwise pursue a claim to the FOS just because they like filling in forms and enjoy a bit of righteous indignation.

In my view the current FOS system is perverted in that it gives the bank basically 2 options:

• Pay £25/£50/£100 to satisify a minor/non-existent grievance
• Pay £500, and a lot of internal administration cost, for the privilege of being proved right by the FOS

opinions4u

mulronie wrote: »

The current zeitgeist of monetary compensation for even the most minor complaints is simply a commercial reaction to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Don't forget, a complaint that makes it to the adjudication stage at the FOS costs a bank £500 - regardless of the FOS's decision.

As well as compensating genuine customer loss, banks thus also budget large amounts to "shut up" petty folk who would otherwise pursue a claim to the FOS just because they like filling in forms and enjoy a bit of righteous indignation.

In my view the current FOS system is perverted in that it gives the bank basically 2 options:

• Pay £25/£50/£100 to satisify a minor/non-existent grievance
• Pay £500, and a lot of internal administration cost, for the privilege of being proved right by the FOS

While there is a commercial judgement to make regarding FOS costs, it's the FSA who have made all the noise about compensation expectations in the last couple of years.

Rightly so as far as I'm concerned.

The_pc_tech

And that's what drives some customers.

Agricolae

I would expect the case fee structure to change over the next few years, due to the compensation issues if nothing else.

Techhead_2

mulronie wrote: »

The current zeitgeist of monetary compensation for even the most minor complaints is simply a commercial reaction to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Don't forget, a complaint that makes it to the adjudication stage at the FOS costs a bank £500 - regardless of the FOS's decision.

As well as compensating genuine customer loss, banks thus also budget large amounts to "shut up" petty folk who would otherwise pursue a claim to the FOS just because they like filling in forms and enjoy a bit of righteous indignation.

In my view the current FOS system is perverted in that it gives the bank basically 2 options:

• Pay £25/£50/£100 to satisify a minor/non-existent grievance
• Pay £500, and a lot of internal administration cost, for the privilege of being proved right by the FOS

This is very true. It's unfortunate that many of these frivolous complainers see the gesture of goodwill as a vindication of their position; rather than realise it is a "go away and shut up" payment.

Of course the same thing happens in other businesses as well. A glance into the consumer rights section will reveal people who believe they have scored a victory for the consumer - when in fact the company concerned have merely paid out a small amount rather than defend a costlier small claims action.

In the end it is all of us who pay for these goodwill payments as they are factored into business costs.

RoxRoxBling

Techhead wrote: »

In the end it is all of us who pay for these goodwill payments as they are factored into business costs.

Does that explain how rubbish Natwest's interest rates are??

I have a current account with nw and all has been smooth sailing.
And I don't recall being affected by the IT or D/C failures.
Halifax on the other hand, on my previous current account allowed someone to withdraw money through telephone banking, then had the nerve to close my account and tell me to never bank with them! - they should compensate me!