Can I make a complaint against a bank if i'm not a member?

Section62

Hoenir said:

Section62 said:

Hoenir said:

Section62 said:

Hoenir said:

cupid07 said:

Hoenir said:

What are you attempting to achieve? Why do you need a reference? 

Why wouldn't I need a reference? I always ask for complaint number after I've made a complaint, to ensure its been formally logged. 

You haven't made a complaint. You've provided information. To which the bank responded .  "They finished with appropriate action has been taken." Matter closed. 

The bank should be logging the call though, and it is not unreasonable for the caller to request a reference (or similar) to aid in identifying the logged call in case they needed to call back.

Perhaps the grounds for complaint might be the refusal to provide any form of reference/ID for the call?

There's nothing to log as there's no action to be taken. 

Unless there's more to this tale than we've been informed. 

Banking isn't my area of expertise, but I'd be gobsmacked if there wasn't an internal requirement to log all calls (or other contact) where fraudulent activity is alleged.  I'd be equally surprised if such a call could be dismissed as "no action to be taken".

Have you actually read the thread.

Yes.

Hoenir said:

The matter has been dealt with.  It's closed. Finished. Therefore no further action is required.

I think you missed the point.  It would also help if the OP could clarify whether the "appropriate action has been taken" comment was made in the first call or during some follow-up contact.

I've got to say your posts are coming across as hostile to the OP... if you don't want to help them you don't need to respond on their thread.  They aren't being unreasonable in expecting a bank to be able to give them some kind of complaint/call reference in response to a report of potential/suspected fraud.

friolento

If you have suspicion and/or evidence of fraud, report it to the Police.

badmemory

Or put it another way - the bank is happy for any fraud to continue.

eskbanker

badmemory said:

Or put it another way - the bank is happy for any fraud to continue.

Or another possibility is that the bank doesn't consider OP's allegations to be sufficiently credible (or evidential) to warrant any action - we don't know what relationship there is between OP and the bank's customer, or what OP considered to be evidence of 'potential' fraud, but any company would need to tread very carefully if presented with accusations from someone other than its customer.

M25

cupid07 said:

I recently made some discoveries about someone I know potentically committing fraud and contacted their bank as a result. I gave them all the evidence I had and they tell me as i'm not a member of the bank, they are unable to raise a complaint regarding this. They then go onto say that if i have sent any money then they would be able to dispute the transactions as fraud. They finished with appropriate action has been taken. This was after I asked for a reference number that the complaint had been logged (just for reference) that they told me this. Can someone confirm if I'm not a member I am able to get this formally logged?

Member? I'm sure you mean customer unless it's a mutual bank.

Go to the police. 

What you are doing/describing is none of your business.

EarthBoy

cupid07 said:

Hoenir said:

What are you attempting to achieve? Why do you need a reference? 

Why wouldn't I need a reference? I always ask for complaint number after I've made a complaint, to ensure its been formally logged. 

You only need a reference if you need to follow up the complaint and find out what action the bank took.  Unless it involves your own account, then it's none of your business how the bank handled it, and they're not going to tell you what action they took, if any. Indeed, for them to do so would be illegal as it would breach the Data Protection Act.

born_again

badmemory said:

Or put it another way - the bank is happy for any fraud to continue.

No they are not. But they can not take the word of a unknown 3rd party, who may just have a grudge against the other person.
Banks are not the police. So can not investigate matters that are out of their remit.

@friolento advised the right way to tackle the issue.

Section62

EarthBoy said:

cupid07 said:

Hoenir said:

What are you attempting to achieve? Why do you need a reference? 

Why wouldn't I need a reference? I always ask for complaint number after I've made a complaint, to ensure its been formally logged. 

You only need a reference if you need to follow up the complaint and find out what action the bank took.  Unless it involves your own account, then it's none of your business how the bank handled it, and they're not going to tell you what action they took, if any.

I can think of various situations in which the OP having some kind of reference would be useful to both them and the bank.

But that probably isn't the real issue here, as the OP's primary comment is about the bank saying they can't complain as they aren't a 'member'.  It isn't clear from the OP's post what action (if any) the bank were going to take.

Indeed, for them to do so would be illegal as it would breach the Data Protection Act.

I'm not sure it would be - it would depend on the circumstances of the case and the nature of information given out by the bank.  For example, if the 'fraud' is against the OP then 'data protection' wouldn't preclude the bank giving the OP some feedback on what action they took.  There may be more of an issue regarding 'tipping off'.

Section62

born_again said:

badmemory said:

Or put it another way - the bank is happy for any fraud to continue.

No they are not. But they can not take the word of a unknown 3rd party, who may just have a grudge against the other person.
Banks are not the police. So can not investigate matters that are out of their remit.

@friolento advised the right way to tackle the issue.

Do you think recording and investigating an allegation of potential fraud committed by a customer is not within a bank's remit?  If so, that would seem at odds with the great many threads on this borad where banks freeze customer accounts while they/NCA investigate suspected fraud.... often with what appears to be very limited justification.

In this case the third party is making themselves known to the bank (which is why I think the bank are obliged to log the report and attach some kind of reference to it).  The bank shouldn't "take the word" of whoever is making the report, but equally they shouldn't just ignore it.

More specifically, a customer-facing call handler shouldn't be making the decision which reports should be recorded and which should be ignored.  That's partly why I think the OP has a point - if someone calls a bank and provides evidence of suspected fraud then the bank should have a process in place to handle that information correctly.

masonic

The purpose of a reference is so that a complainant can use it to request information about the complaint. It would be unlawful for the bank to give out any information, including whether or not the individual accused in the complaint exists. It would be dishonest of the bank to give out a reference that could not be subsequently be used by the complainant to obtain details pertaining to the complaint. However, pragmatically, they could have just made up a sequence of digits to fob off the complainant. The correct course of action in either case is for any follow-up to be met with the response that they have no information that can be shared with a third party.

If the OP wishes to know more about what happens, then reporting to the police may be more fruitful, as it is possible they could be brought into the investigation as a witness. That isn't something that could happen internally in a bank investigation.