I’ve been scammed, what to do next?

ThisnotThat

Windsorcastle said:

masonic said:

The Ombudsman won't be able to take up your complaint until First Direct have had a chance to resolve it and either given you their final response or 8 weeks have elapsed.

Very poor show regarding the safe word. There will no doubt be recordings of your prior calls.

Thank you, good to know.  I’m completely shocked about the safe word.  I did point out to them that all calls are recorded so I will certainly be asking for copies/transcripts in due course, if necessary.  

Not every employee has access to every system.  It's possible that there was a note set up to ask for a safe word on the CS side of things, but not on the Fraud department side.  It's incompetence, yes, but you need to be a little more understanding of these things

tempus_fugit

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

masonic said:

The Ombudsman won't be able to take up your complaint until First Direct have had a chance to resolve it and either given you their final response or 8 weeks have elapsed.

Very poor show regarding the safe word. There will no doubt be recordings of your prior calls.

Thank you, good to know.  I’m completely shocked about the safe word.  I did point out to them that all calls are recorded so I will certainly be asking for copies/transcripts in due course, if necessary.  

Not every employee has access to every system.  It's possible that there was a note set up to ask for a safe word on the CS side of things, but not on the Fraud department side.  It's incompetence, yes, but you need to be a little more understanding of these things

In most cases, yes, but in this case I think it was gross incompetence. It sounds like it was the bank that first raised the fact that a safeword would be used, so you'd think that CS and the fraud dept would be on the same page. The fact that they were not, and in a case that involves a breach of security, just seems ridiculous to me, and this is, presumably, First Direct, who are supposed to have a good reputation for customer service. it's not very reassuring that the banks, who lecture us (and rightly so) on security can't follow the same rules themselves. If THEY are calling YOU, then THEY should prove who they are and not the other way round. None of this is looking particularly good for the bank at all.

ThisnotThat

tempus_fugit said:

ThisnotThat said:

Windsorcastle said:

masonic said:

The Ombudsman won't be able to take up your complaint until First Direct have had a chance to resolve it and either given you their final response or 8 weeks have elapsed.

Very poor show regarding the safe word. There will no doubt be recordings of your prior calls.

Thank you, good to know.  I’m completely shocked about the safe word.  I did point out to them that all calls are recorded so I will certainly be asking for copies/transcripts in due course, if necessary.  

Not every employee has access to every system.  It's possible that there was a note set up to ask for a safe word on the CS side of things, but not on the Fraud department side.  It's incompetence, yes, but you need to be a little more understanding of these things

In most cases, yes, but in this case I think it was gross incompetence. It sounds like it was the bank that first raised the fact that a safeword would be used, so you'd think that CS and the fraud dept would be on the same page. The fact that they were not, and in a case that involves a breach of security, just seems ridiculous to me, and this is, presumably, First Direct, who are supposed to have a good reputation for customer service. it's not very reassuring that the banks, who lecture us (and rightly so) on security can't follow the same rules themselves. If THEY are calling YOU, then THEY should prove who they are and not the other way round. None of this is looking particularly good for the bank at all.

You might think that but it's not necessarily true.  What two departments have access to is not always the same.

It's probably poor training on the CS side, rather than the fraud side.  And I agree that the OP has been messed around, but understanding, rather than aggression is what is needed here.  It will get sorted out a lot more easily if the OP approaches them without accusations of wrongdoing.  Mistakes happen.

masonic

ThisnotThat said:

It's probably poor training on the CS side, rather than the fraud side.  And I agree that the OP has been messed around, but understanding, rather than aggression is what is needed here.  It will get sorted out a lot more easily if the OP approaches them without accusations of wrongdoing.  Mistakes happen.

The problem as I see it here is that CS have denied the mistake and are gaslighting the customer. This is really inexcusable and warrants the complaint.

Windsorcastle

To clarify - yes, it was the bank who raised the issue of a safe word, insisted upon it and repeatedly warned me not to speak to the caller if they did not provide it.  It is supposedly one of their security protocols, and yet THEY breached it.  To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  I feel I am perfectly justified in raising a formal complaint, given the incompetence and the fact that the fraud happened on Tuesday and I am still waiting for a meaningful contact from the bank as to what steps they’ve taken to retrieve my money.  

colsten

ThisnotThat said:

Not every employee has access to every system. 

ThisnotThat said:

 What two departments have access to is not always the same.

This may be so but it is not down to the customer's to know which person in the bank has access to which information. It is 100% the bank's responsibility to provide the customer with a consistent and coherent experience. 

It was without shadow of a doubt an incredibly poor show by the bank who tops the Customer Service league tables again and again, and they have no excuse for such bad performance. 

GeordieGeorge

colsten said:

ThisnotThat said:

Not every employee has access to every system. 

ThisnotThat said:

 What two departments have access to is not always the same.

This may be so but it is not down to the customer's to know which person in the bank has access to which information. It is 100% the bank's responsibility to provide the customer with a consistent and coherent experience. 

It was without shadow of a doubt an incredibly poor show by the bank who tops the Customer Service league tables again and again, and they have no excuse for such bad performance. 

I think that you aren’t being very understanding here when the bank are trying to help with what happened and then possibly use their own money to give you back what you lost through your own carelessness.

You are upset that they didn’t manage to follow their own protocol properly yet this whole issue came up because you didn’t do things right either.

Would a bit of give and take not be appropriate here rather than talk of the ombudsman and asking for transcripts if calls?

Even if you want to hold them to a higher standard that you hold yourself there’ll be some discretion when it comes down to who gets refunded and you’re running the risk of having your request put into the “do not compensate” pile.

Windsorcastle

You are upset that they didn’t manage to follow their own protocol properly yet this whole issue came up because you didn’t do things right either.

Would a bit of give and take not be appropriate here rather than talk of the ombudsman and asking for transcripts if calls?

Even if you want to hold them to a higher standard that you hold yourself there’ll be some discretion when it comes down to who gets refunded and you’re running the risk of having your request put into the “do not compensate” pile.

I think I am entitled to be upset that the bank - having told me that I had been foolish during a very credible scam call, to give personal information that "we would never ask for" etc, when in fact I now have irrefutable proof that they do not adhere to their own security protocols.   How can they accuse a customer of stupidity when they blatantly disregard the very security protocols THEY have insisted on. As a further update - I rang them again this morning to request a specific timeframe for the callback from the Fraud team and guess what?  Was told YET  AGAIN that no safe word has been recorded.  It's beyond beliefe.  I'm now waiting again for a call from Customer Relations to explain what the hell is going on.  I think you'd be upset too at this point.

colsten

GeordieGeorge said:

colsten said:

ThisnotThat said:

Not every employee has access to every system. 

ThisnotThat said:

 What two departments have access to is not always the same.

This may be so but it is not down to the customer's to know which person in the bank has access to which information. It is 100% the bank's responsibility to provide the customer with a consistent and coherent experience. 

It was without shadow of a doubt an incredibly poor show by the bank who tops the Customer Service league tables again and again, and they have no excuse for such bad performance. 

I think that you aren’t being very understanding here when the bank are trying to help with what happened and then possibly use their own money to give you back what you lost through your own carelessness.

You are upset that they didn’t manage to follow their own protocol properly yet this whole issue came up because you didn’t do things right either.

Would a bit of give and take not be appropriate here rather than talk of the ombudsman and asking for transcripts if calls?

Even if you want to hold them to a higher standard that you hold yourself there’ll be some discretion when it comes down to who gets refunded and you’re running the risk of having your request put into the “do not compensate” pile.

Not sure why you have responded to my post the way you have. I am not the victim but I have an opinion, as per my post, and no, I don't think anyone should excuse the dreadful First Direct response even if one of their customers made mistakes.

ThisnotThat

Windsorcastle said:

To clarify - yes, it was the bank who raised the issue of a safe word, insisted upon it and repeatedly warned me not to speak to the caller if they did not provide it.  It is supposedly one of their security protocols, and yet THEY breached it.  To suggest one dept might not have access to the system is ludicrous.  I feel I am perfectly justified in raising a formal complaint, given the incompetence and the fact that the fraud happened on Tuesday and I am still waiting for a meaningful contact from the bank as to what steps they’ve taken to retrieve my money.  

It's not ludicruous. I've worked for a bank.  Not every department has access to every system, or every part of each system.