AA Card

bigadaj

adindas wrote: »

A lot of argument involved. Here I am showing evidence. Did you read this ? This is just the tips of the iceberg the incompetence of some staffs working at BoI.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5388952
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69894317#Comment_69894317
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5397960

There are a few more cases has been reported here.

"Perhaps yrs at present address, many recent applications, discrepancy between application and credit report information etc .

Also this statement is wrong. I could easily proof it

That's not proof, it's rumour and hearsay, hope you don't ever end up in court.

If you don't like them just don't use them, they may well be incompetent in which case avoid, simples.

eskbanker

adindas wrote: »

A lot of argument involved. Here I am showing evidence. Did you read this ? This is just the tips of the iceberg the incompetence of some staffs working at BoI.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5388952
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69894317#Comment_69894317
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5397960

There are a few more cases has been reported here.

Not for the first time you're trying to take a thread off-topic in your unyielding desire to smear AA/BoI at every opportunity - the subject of this thread is specifically their seemingly stringent ID verification criteria so there is no need to start dragging up all of your old favourite threads about unrelated customer service issues reported by other posters.

adindas

eskbanker wrote: »

I think you're trying to take this too literally - that poster was suggesting potential reasons/policies as warning signs, which (individually or cumulatively) may make it more likely for a manual check to be made. Just because someone may have posted that they had to verify manually with more than three years at current address wouldn't disprove this!

I have no idea why you seem so obsessed with this notion that it's staff incompetence or laziness - obviously nobody on here knows for sure what their criteria are but in general it seems to be accepted that most application/underwriting decisions are automated rather than being dependent on the discretion of low-paid admin staff.

My assumption is that electronic verification will involve fully automated server-to-server relaying of submitted personal details to a checking service and getting a score back that'll be handled by the processing software with no manual intervention needed. The manual equivalent (presumably only invoked by exception if said score is too low) will involve sending out correspondence and opening/reading/copying/reviewing responses, which to my mind will be substantially more legwork for BoI, so why would they voluntarily do this out of 'laziness'?

The link that I send you is about incompetence is not it, it is not just about verification as you are querying about this. I provide the link which is just the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding verification, I was initially responding to the post #6.

eskbanker

adindas wrote: »

The link that I send you is about incompetence is not it, it is not just about verification as you are querying about this. I provide the link which is just the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding verification, I was initially responding to the post #6.

I suspect that this has long since run its useful course but one last try to help you understand....

Post #6 was, like everyone else's posts in the thread, about AA's verification processes, that require four certified documents to be submitted when they deem that manual verification is needed.

You have decided to try to make some sort of connection between their verification policy and some reported customer service issues (some of which may involve human error on their part) and conclude, without any apparent attempt at logic or reason, that this collectively signifies some sort of institutional incompetence.

I'm not trying to defend AA/BoI in any way here (although doubt their staff are any better or worse than those of comparable institutions) but just feel the need to point out the lack of any sort of cohesive logic in your relentless attack on them - however, as this is largely mirrored by your rather fragmented and selective approach to addressing points put to you, I suspect that most readers will be capable of making their own minds up....

adindas

eskbanker wrote: »

I suspect that this has long since run its useful course but one last try to help you understand....

Post #6 was, like everyone else's posts in the thread, about AA's verification processes, that require four certified documents to be submitted when they deem that manual verification is needed.

You have decided to try to make some sort of connection between their verification policy and some reported customer service issues (some of which may involve human error on their part) and conclude, without any apparent attempt at logic or reason, that this collectively signifies some sort of institutional incompetence.

I'm not trying to defend AA/BoI in any way here (although doubt their staff are any better or worse than those of comparable institutions) but just feel the need to point out the lack of any sort of cohesive logic in your relentless attack on them - however, as this is largely mirrored by your rather fragmented and selective approach to addressing points put to you, I suspect that most readers will be capable of making their own minds up....

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion although I disagree. But I stand to my own opinion based on the link showing evidence of incompetence which is just the tips of the iceberg. Argument does not really help, evidence does.

Here what the people are saying from an independent review Panel
1.1 out of 5 stars is not good, is it ?

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews101652.html

Read what the people are saying in the link above. People are using a very strong language to express their disappointments.

eskbanker

Well, I now know why the MSE emoji collection includes this one!

:wall:

adindas

eskbanker wrote: »

Well, I now know why the MSE emoji collection includes this one!

:wall:

Is it what you do when people disagree with you ?
Do not you know that emoji exist everywhere not only on MSE ?

bigadaj

adindas wrote: »

Is it what you do when people disagree with you ?
Do not you know that emoji exist everywhere not only on MSE ?

Yes, but seldom so appropriately.

eskbanker

Not in emoji form but to me one image encapsulates a similar dogged determination to repeatedly answer a different question from the one being asked!



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7740130.stm

grayme-m

I hope the BOI is more secure with the AA credit card than it seems the AA is with its own website that it is claimed published online customer credit card details.

https://www.grahamcluley.com/yes-despite-says-aa-customer-credit-card-data-exposed/