First Direct - 20 minute phone quiz now needed to open savings account

masonic

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Consumers have proven that they are very resourceful when it comes to claiming compo. Banks got a bit bored with it, I reckon.

Perhaps we also need to be resourceful when trying to get around a pointless exercise like having the full T&Cs of an account read out to us over the phone before we are permitted to open the account. For example, this can't be very satisfactory for someone who is hearing impaired... :think:

grumbler

Mr_Goodkat wrote: »

I just don't see a miss selling angle on a regular saver:

Misselling can take place only if:

• they hard-sell it to me or
• I want to open it, ask the questions and they fail to answer correctly.

Neither is the case here.

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Consumers have proven that they are very resourceful when it comes to claiming compo. Banks got a bit bored with it, I reckon.

In both cases this is costly for banks, so this in an expensive way of fighting boredom. They waste money on paying one person to torture another. Not to mention the overheads. UK tormentors don't come cheap for FD.

masonic

I've been thinking about it and I can't get my head around the compensation theory. I'd say a customer who had 30 minutes of their time wasted by their bank in a pointless exercise has a much stronger case for compensation than a customer who lied when they ticked the box to say they read the T&Cs in an online application.

Doc_N

masonic wrote: »

I've been thinking about it and I can't get my head around the compensation theory. I'd say a customer who had 30 minutes of their time wasted by their bank in a pointless exercise has a much stronger case for compensation than a customer who lied when they ticked the box to say they read the T&Cs in an online application.

Now there's an idea. If I didn't value my long term relationship with First Direct I'd have a pop at that one!

AlwaysLearnin

I would happily sit and listen for 20 minutes, if they were explaining a new RS 'auto renew' facility that meant I didn't have to go through the manual process each year, and only had to contact them again to cancel the automatic renewal if I wanted to...

Thrugelmir

Vortigern wrote: »

I find this procedure insulting. It seems to imply that I can't read the terms for myself, or that I'm lying when I say that I have read them.

While you may, some people don't. Then when it suits them they'll deny reading, receiving a copy etc etc. By running through everyone the bank has covered it's backside.

If a customer isn't willing to spend 30 minutes of time to open an account. How long will they remain a customer of a bank. From a business perspective simply isn't worthwhile having them as a customer.

colsten

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If a customer isn't willing to spend 30 minutes of time to open an account. How long will they remain a customer of a bank. From a business perspective simply isn't worthwhile having them as a customer.

We are talking about customers whose RS has matured and who want another one. For the last 6 years, FD were quite happy to let me open an RS each year without having to listen to a recital of their T&Cs (which I had read anyway before deciding I want the account). So I was a "worthwhile" customer for 6 years, but they aren't quite sure I will be in the future if I just want to renew my account? And by lending them my ear for half an hour I will become "worthwhile" again? Is that what you are saying?

Mr_Goodkat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

While you may, some people don't. Then when it suits them they'll deny reading, receiving a copy etc etc. By running through everyone the bank has covered it's backside.

If a customer isn't willing to spend 30 minutes of time to open an account. How long will they remain a customer of a bank. From a business perspective simply isn't worthwhile having them as a customer.

What is the bank covering it's backside against in this case?


I fail to see how anybody could launch any action against FD over a regular saver.


As far as I am aware FD do not try and actively sell the regular saver, they have no need to it is a loss leading product to help attract and retain customers. I am sure they would much rather have £3600 a year from me at in either my FD current account earning nothing or a paltry sum in their other savings accounts rather than paying 6% interest on it. People who subscribe to the regular saver do so because they want to not because they are pressured to.


Every year that somebody sees out the full term they earn 6% on their money, a rate that cannot be bettered in UK banking so it would be very difficult for a consumer to show that this product disadvantaged them, was not suitable for their needs or was miss sold when there is an active 'I want this product' from the consumer.


The terms and conditions and product summary are very clear.


The money is not locked away it is accessible, the only loss is getting a significantly lower rate than the 6% if you access the funds mid term this is clearly set out.


The only potential loss a customer can suffer is if they took the funds from a regular saver mid term and therefore received a lower amount of interest for the period than they would if they had kept the funds in a higher rate account elsewhere. The loss suffered here is very small and the burden of proof is with the consumer to show they were miss sold this product and I just can't see them making a case here.


This is either FD taking miss selling too seriously and applying ridiculous rules to a regular saver product or they wish to reduce their exposure to the interest they are paying out on regular savers so therefore make it more difficult for people to access it.


What a sweeping statement to suggest that somebody who is not willing to spend 30 minutes opening an account won't stay as a customer for long. I am not willing to spend 30 minutes on the phone to open another regular saver for the umpteenth year when previously I have been able to do this quickly and easily online it is inconvenient and appalling customer service from an organisation that prides itself on outstanding customer service. It is ridiculous to suggest there is some link between the willingness of a person to waste thirty minutes of their life opening a regular saver over the phone and how worthwhile they are to First Direct as a customer from a business point of view.

michaels

I wonder if banks can be fined for 'miselling' IE failing to follow the rules oto the letter even if they don't end up paying any compensation because there is no loss to the customer, hence HSBC (who have been expensively stung in the past for not following every rule to the letter) deciding it is cheaper to p off their custoemrs and burn staff hours than apply common sense and risk huge fines (for doing something wrong that didn't harm anyone).

Do any of the industry experts know what the rules are on deciding what disclosure is necessary - do banks need to be confident in the source of all funds even for savings accounts due to money-laundering regualtions? What if they only allow deposits from an existing current account, surely in this case they already need to know where the fund come from when they first enter the bank so don't need to enquire further for a savings account that can only be funded from a current account?

Thrugelmir

Mr_Goodkat wrote: »

What is the bank covering it's backside against in this case?

Regulatory compliance in the broadest terms is a major issue for the banks both in terms of cost and manpower. Therefore easier to have a set of standard procedures that staff are trained to perform. Than have a vast number of variables.

Very easy to take a micro view of why as a customer should this apply to me. Whereas the bank taking a macro view just has the customer as an account number amongst 25 million others. The banks's issue is economically vetting the 25 million as a whole. Not vetting all 25 million individually.

As far as I am aware FD do not try and actively sell the regular saver, they have no need to it is a loss leading product to help attract and retain customers.

The account not a loss leader. It's a way of raising deposits. Banks leverage their balance sheets to lend money. Given that FD has no branch network it's also an effective mechanism for marketing. RBS currently spends £11 million a year sponsoring the rugby 6 Nations for example.