Weird scenario at the Bank

societys_child

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I'd hope we all have enough civic pride and belief in being civil to others to recognise that having racist graffiti left up is something worth complaining about.

Point it out, yes, but complain (to people who didn't cause it) and demand cash because your offended?

Sounds like a scam anyway.

Outsider_83

I popped back in today, the area has been cordoned off. I asked out of interest what had happened, the staff member advised that someone had put "inappropriate" graffiti on a bench that was subsequently picked up on by another customer. I'm led to believe that money was paid out to the "injured party".

JuicyJesus

Outsider_83 wrote: »

I popped back in today, the area has been cordoned off. I asked out of interest what had happened, the staff member advised that someone had put "inappropriate" graffiti on a bench that was subsequently picked up on by another customer. I'm led to believe that money was paid out to the "injured party".

Sad that they paid out to be honest. Probably inevitable because someone wanting money for such a thing probably knows it'd have cost them £550.

Outsider_83

£550, really?

bigadaj

There's a standard cost that the bank has to pay when a non frivolous claim is referred to the regulator, however anecdotally it's a lot less than £500 for the major players, so the compo, if p[aid, could be much less.


You'd expect something like this to be dealt with in a similar way to potholes, the 'injured' party would have to claim the owner has been negligent, and not check within a defined period or been previously advised.

teddysmum

The customers should now all be offended because the bank wasted money that they will have to make up for in fees or poor interest.


Racism isn't nice but it is represented as one way, when the truth is that it goes both ways but one is ignored.

System

bigadaj wrote: »

There's a standard cost that the bank has to pay when a non frivolous claim is referred to the regulator, however anecdotally it's a lot less than £500 for the major players, so the compo, if p[aid, could be much less.


You'd expect something like this to be dealt with in a similar way to potholes, the 'injured' party would have to claim the owner has been negligent, and not check within a defined period or been previously advised.

It not the regulator - It's the Financial Ombudsmen Scheme.

I hope that bank decided the 'offended' individual isn't worth doing business with and closed his/her accounts.

eskbanker

Heng_Leng wrote: »

I hope that bank decided the 'offended' individual isn't worth doing business with and closed his/her accounts.

Just imagine how that individual would respond to being, er, blacklisted....

Kernel_Sanders

teddysmum wrote: »

The customers should now all be offended because the bank wasted money that they will have to make up for in fees or poor interest.

I am offended too. So, which bank was it?.....

Heng_Leng wrote: »

It not the regulator - It's the Financial Ombudsmen Scheme.

Think I'll make a claim against them too, implying that women aren't welcome in applying for such a role.