Lloyds breaking their own security rules

ChiefGrasscutter

Detail the last few transactions on your account?

Goldiegirl

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Lloyds security themselves told me that they never withheld phone numbers, and if a caller did so then it was not from Lloyds. It was the first question he asked when I rang them - had I tried 1471 to see if it was the correct number. No mention of switchboards etc - he categorically said a customer-facing section of Lloyds did not withhold its number.
So was he lying, or was it a mistake? Either way, it's an inconsistency in their security procedures.

What is the correct procedure then if someone rings up claiming to be from a bank, won't explain why, but says they need security information first? If they withhold the phone number and won't say which department they are from, how is one supposed to call back having checked the number independently ?

The banks normally have a system which all members of staff can access to see your details and any notes that have been made.

Therefore, if you weren't happy to answer questions to confirm who you were (the member of staff has a duty to make sure they are speaking to the right person. After all, you wouldn't like it if they gave personal information to the plumber working in your house or the bloke on the next desk at work who picked up your mobile), you'd have to ring back on the bank's main number, and hope that the person who you were speaking to had put notes on your file so that the call centre person could deal with the matter.

Or, if you are currently in the middle of an ISA transfer and they say they are calling about an ISA transfer, maybe it'd be reasonable to believe the call is genuine. Refusing to answer security questions in this instance could be construed as cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Goldiegirl

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

Detail the last few transactions on your account?

But the customer would have to confirm who they were first, before the person at the bank could confirm that information.

GingerBob_3

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But the customer would have to confirm who they were first, before the person at the bank could confirm that information.

No they wouldn't. Basic information about a recent transaction is unlikely to be of use to anyone. Or they could confirm your DoB month or something like that. There are loads of possibilities, but they just won't have it. As I said, you are expected to put 100% trust in them, but on the other side of the coin their working assumption is that you're a criminal and you must prove you aren't.


Basically, because the banks are being so arsey about this, the standard response should be "I don't take calls from financial institutions. Please write".

Goldiegirl

GingerBob wrote: »

Basically, because the banks are being so arsey about this, the standard response should be "I don't take calls from financial institutions. Please write".

I was always happy to write if a customer didn't want to speak on the phone.

But, if the bank writes using Royal Mail, don't get arsey if the transfer of the ISA ( or whatever) takes ages to conclude.

A simple phone call could have resolved the matter there and then, rather than have it drag on for weeks with letters going back and forth

But that's your 'call'

grumbler

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Also, if the bank is calling for a reason, they need to make sure they are talking to the correct person. So they need to ask questions to confirm who they are talking to. That's not asking questions out of the blue, that's asking questions for a reason.

Well, in this case

• they have to prove first that they are calling from the bank, that they never do,
• questions they ask have be reasonable, e.g. the information they ask has to be partial (like certain letters/digits), not full, or select the correct answer from several options.

It's just common sense really that such callers usually lack.

When I had to call customers, if they were unhappy about answering security questions, I told them I'd put all the notes on their file, and then they could phone back and the call centre operative could ask them the questions instead. For some reason, this made them a lot keener to answer the security questions!

This is blackmailing: people don't want to waste time on a telephone queue. However, I'd prefer to queue rather than give a sensible information to a cold caller, especially with withheld number.

Goldiegirl

grumbler wrote: »

This is blackmailing: people don't want to waste time on a telephone queue. However, I'd prefer to queue rather than give a sensible information to a cold caller, especially with withheld number.

Of course it's not blackmail.

I had a job to do, normally involving mortgage applications, which were obviously very important to customers.

It was really no skin off my nose if I spoke to the customer there and then, whether they called back, or whether I wrote to them.

If I couldn't confirm who I was speaking to, then I couldn't discuss their mortgage application, so I had to give them the choice of them calling back or me writing.

In most cases, the person I was speaking to decided at that point , they'd prefer to answer the security questions they previously declined to answer, as they wanted to talk about their application.

Why would I want to blackmail someone into talking about something that was to their advantage? Blackmail implies some personal gain for me, and frankly I wasn't bothered how I imparted the information. I didn't have time to play games with the customer, if they didn't want to answer security questions, I wasn't going to beg and plead - i just told them the other options available for them deal with the matter in hand.

cheesetoast

While not completely infallible, if I suspect a dodgy call, I ask the caller to email me on the spot with a password we agree there and then.

If it comes from a legit email address, I continue. If they refuse, I tell them they've failed security.

pinkdalek

Mountain and mole hill come to mind.

Any normal person would ring back Lloyds and speak to them about their ISA and is there anything that needs to be discussed.
If it was genuine there should be notes on the customer's file.

Companies ask security checks to verify they are speaking to the right client. They only ask things that they already know and do ask you to divulge account information/passwords etc.

Stop getting involved in the politics or banks policies, the main concern is "Are your ISA funds safe and have not been compromised"

Talking on here about people's experiences (usally bad as people like to moan) only makes you feel worse.

eskbanker

cheesetoast wrote: »

If it comes from a legit email address, I continue.

On what basis are you judging an email address to be legit and not spoofed?