Why Are Banks Sometimes Obstructive?

ValiantSon

EachPenny wrote: »

It doesn't matter which bank we are talking about - the onus is on the customer to read the T&C's and fully satisfy themselves the account is suitable for their needs having regard to the way in which they plan to operate the account. Understanding the requirements for paying out/withdrawing money from the account is surely one of the most important things a customer has to consider when it comes to current accounts?

I feel that to be a really disingenuous comment, and one that misses the point that I made. NatWest don't make it clear that a card reader is needed to authorise transfers. Most people will (quite reasonably) read the summary account information, but not necessarily every word of the T&Cs before opening an account (assuming that these actually refer to it). If you do then good for you, but you will very much be in the minority. It is not unreasonable to expect that a bank will make clear that a card reader is required, and every other bank and building society who I have had dealings with that do use them (or other security tokens) make that clear at the point of application, and either send them out automatically, or ask you if you wish to order one. NatWest don't do this. For something as basic as setting up payments on a current account this is information pertinent enough for it to be clearly set out at the point of application, without requiring customers to read through the entire T&Cs (if these actually refer to it).

Furthermore, I have just gone through the T&Cs for NatWest current accounts and they do not, anywhere, say that you need a card reader for transactions via online banking! Where are customers, therefore, supposed to find out this information? (Please don't say this forum because the majority of people in this country don't use the forum, and it is not the job of other customers to make people aware of a company's operating requirements).

EachPenny wrote: »

The card reader is generic amongst several banks, the chances are that serial switchers will have at least one reader in a draw somewhere, or be aware that different banks have different approaches to authorising transactions and therefore have checked NatWest's requirements in advance. NatWest could do more to publicise the need for a card reader, but the need for one was made clear in this forum well before anyone would have been able to apply for an account and complete their switch.

I'm sorry, but each of those points are again disingenuous. I'll deal with each in turn:

1) "The card reader is generic amongst several banks, the chances are that serial switchers will have at least one reader in a draw somewhere." Not everyone is a serial switcher! I am talking about whether a bank makes things clear for customers or not. It is not reasonable to say that people should have a card reader from another bank that they can use. No bank should assume that their new customers will have a device from a different bank that they can make do with. I also very much doubt that NatWest's failure to make people aware of the need for the card reader has anything to do with them thinking, "We're going to get all these serial switchers, so it doesn't matter." NatWest simply haven't thought their processes through very well.

2) "or be aware that different banks have different approaches to authorising transactions and therefore have checked NatWest's requirements in advance." I have already said that it is ridiculous to bury such an important requirement in the full T&Cs, and good customer service would make a new customer aware of such a fundamental requirement. It is not beyond the wit of man to make the point clear, but it is, apparently, beyond the wit of NatWest. Given that the T&Cs don't refer to the use of a card reader at all, where else should a customer have been expected to look?

3) "NatWest could do more to publicise the need for a card reader, but the need for one was made clear in this forum well before anyone would have been able to apply for an account and complete their switch." This forum is not the bank! Not everyone applying for a NatWest account will read this forum, and even if they do, they may not happen to have read the relevant thread. That is a poor excuse for the banks' failure to inform customers.

EachPenny wrote: »

The card reader is needed when setting up a new payee, and for confirming some transactions. But it is also possible to get the payee set up by phone. Therefore it would be possible for some people to make limited online transactions from their NatWest account without a card reader, but this would only be feasible for a minority of customers. But nevertheless, having a card reader should be optional.

So, the banks' failure to provide customers with adequate information is excusable because you can set up payments via phone? That is again, disingenuous. The account comes with online banking and, having set up online banking successfully, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that you can then use it to do some online banking! If they had said that you also need a card reader then people would not have cause to complain, but they don't! Furthermore, you cannot set these payments up by phone if you haven't got a history of making transactions, so a new customer cannot avail themselves of this facility! The bank actually prohibits what you propose.

Why should having a reader be optional? No one would be forcing you to use it, but ensuring that you have one, or have at least been offered one, would simply be good customer service.

EachPenny wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me that NatWest could be more proactive about informing customers that a card reader is required to make full use of online banking, but by any definition of the word, that cannot be said to be "obstructive".

I'll refer you to the sentence in my post which very clearly said, "I'm not going to get into the semantic argument about the word "obstructive", but it is poor customer service. You even quoted this! But as you seem so insistent on trying to argue with me about something I didn't comment on, then yes, there are definitions of the word for which this kind of behaviour could be applied, such as this one:

obstructive
adjective
causing a blockage or obstruction

or this:

obstruct
verb
to interrupt, hinder, or oppose the passage, progress, course, etc., of.

Your comments are unreasonable and tend towards those of an apologist for NatWest's failings. Normally I reject the accusations that people are behaving as apologists for the banks, but your comments in this specific context certainly seem to meet the accusation.

Uxb

ValiantSon wrote: »

Furthermore, I have just gone through the T&Cs for NatWest current accounts and they do not, anywhere, say that you need a card reader for transactions via online banking! Where are customers, therefore, supposed to find out this information?

Try this Natwest webpage then...
https://personal.natwest.com/personal/security-centre.html
which links to this one
https://personal.natwest.com/personal/ways-to-bank/online-banking/do-more-with-online-banking/card-reader-how-to-use-your-card-reader.html

EachPenny

ValiantSon wrote: »

I feel that to be a really disingenuous comment, and one that misses the point that I made. NatWest don't make it clear that a card reader is needed to authorise transfers. Most people will (quite reasonably) read the summary account information, but not necessarily every word of the T&Cs before opening an account (assuming that these actually refer to it). If you do then good for you, but you will very much be in the minority. It is not unreasonable to expect that a bank will make clear that a card reader is required, and every other bank and building society who I have had dealings with that do use them (or other security tokens) make that clear at the point of application, and either send them out automatically, or ask you if you wish to order one. NatWest don't do this. For something as basic as setting up payments on a current account this is information pertinent enough for it to be clearly set out at the point of application, without requiring customers to read through the entire T&Cs (if these actually refer to it).

Furthermore, I have just gone through the T&Cs for NatWest current accounts and they do not, anywhere, say that you need a card reader for transactions via online banking! Where are customers, therefore, supposed to find out this information? (Please don't say this forum because the majority of people in this country don't use the forum, and it is not the job of other customers to make people aware of a company's operating requirements).

I'm sorry, but each of those points are again disingenuous. I'll deal with each in turn:

1) "The card reader is generic amongst several banks, the chances are that serial switchers will have at least one reader in a draw somewhere." Not everyone is a serial switcher! I am talking about whether a bank makes things clear for customers or not. It is not reasonable to say that people should have a card reader from another bank that they can use. No bank should assume that their new customers will have a device from a different bank that they can make do with. I also very much doubt that NatWest's failure to make people aware of the need for the card reader has anything to do with them thinking, "We're going to get all these serial switchers, so it doesn't matter." NatWest simply haven't thought their processes through very well.

2) "or be aware that different banks have different approaches to authorising transactions and therefore have checked NatWest's requirements in advance." I have already said that it is ridiculous to bury such an important requirement in the full T&Cs, and good customer service would make a new customer aware of such a fundamental requirement. It is not beyond the wit of man to make the point clear, but it is, apparently, beyond the wit of NatWest. Given that the T&Cs don't refer to the use of a card reader at all, where else should a customer have been expected to look?

3) "NatWest could do more to publicise the need for a card reader, but the need for one was made clear in this forum well before anyone would have been able to apply for an account and complete their switch." This forum is not the bank! Not everyone applying for a NatWest account will read this forum, and even if they do, they may not happen to have read the relevant thread. That is a poor excuse for the banks' failure to inform customers.

So, the banks' failure to provide customers with adequate information is excusable because you can set up payments via phone? That is again, disingenuous. The account comes with online banking and, having set up online banking successfully, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that you can then use it to do some online banking! If they had said that you also need a card reader then people would not have cause to complain, but they don't! Furthermore, you cannot set these payments up by phone if you haven't got a history of making transactions, so a new customer cannot avail themselves of this facility! The bank actually prohibits what you propose.

Why should having a reader be optional? No one would be forcing you to use it, but ensuring that you have one, or have at least been offered one, would simply be good customer service.

I'll refer you to the sentence in my post which very clearly said, "I'm not going to get into the semantic argument about the word "obstructive", but it is poor customer service. You even quoted this! But as you seem so insistent on trying to argue with me about something I didn't comment on, then yes, there are definitions of the word for which this kind of behaviour could be applied, such as this one:

or this:

Your comments are unreasonable and tend towards those of an apologist for NatWest's failings. Normally I reject the accusations that people are behaving as apologists for the banks, but your comments in this specific context certainly seem to meet the accusation.

Gosh. You must really hate NatWest to put so much effort in to your posts against it.

ValiantSon

Uxb wrote: »

Try this Natwest webpage then...
https://personal.natwest.com/personal/security-centre.html
which links to this one
https://personal.natwest.com/personal/ways-to-bank/online-banking/do-more-with-online-banking/card-reader-how-to-use-your-card-reader.html

Yes, I did find that before you posted, but the requirement to use a card reader isn't included in the T&Cs, nor any other information you are presented with when you open the account.

ValiantSon

EachPenny wrote: »

Gosh. You must really hate NatWest to put so much effort in to your posts against it.

I don't hate NatWest. There are much worse things in life. I object to their poor customer service, and I object to your disingenuous comments about their customer service and how people should have known better and/or had work-arounds to deal with it.

I notice that you haven't actually engaged with a single word that I wrote. If that is because, in retrospect, you accept what I have said, then please feel free to say so.

mgdavid

anotheruser wrote: »

.........

Don't get me wrong, I understand banks are all different businesses, but if I ran a bank, I'd want to make it as easy as possible for customers............

If I ran a bank I'd want to make it as difficult as possible for people of a certain type to become a customer; as a banker I'd be interested in gaining and retaining profitable reasonable people rather than serial switchers, serial complainers and serial timewasters.

PeacefulWaters

mgdavid wrote: »

If I ran a bank I'd want to make it as difficult as possible for people of a certain type to become a customer; as a banker I'd be interested in gaining and retaining profitable reasonable people rather than serial switchers, serial complainers and serial timewasters.

"MGBANK - no riff raff"!

AstroTurtle

When I worked in branch for one of the big 5, Joint accounts were a nightmare largely for disputes/fraud/mismatching addresses.


Most of the time you can't open them online if the bank cant find you on the electoral roll, Most people who open Joint accounts are new couples/new homeowners etc so generally speaking the hit rate for requiring more ID is fairly high. To make a change to a banks website can cost a lot of money especially when it has to setup the back end. The banks have probably made a commercial decision that it just isn't worth the money & time to make it happen for the rewards it gets.


They are businesses and not services. So until it becomes a major issue for losing customer they simply wont do it if it's not majorly necessary.


As for card readers/online transfer limits. Each bank has their own security procedures and it may be more down to what they are comfortable paying out as fraud claims vs restrictions on customers.

mgdavid

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

"MGBANK - no riff raff"!

would you like to be Marketing Director? :beer: