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

eskbanker

We're all having to speculate, so perhaps OP will return to the thread to clarify more detail about what they actually meant by 'potential fraud', what form the evidence takes, the extent to which they were involved, and the basis on which the matter would fall within the bank's complaints process, rather than simply a notification one....

TheBanker

Section62 said:

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.

The bank I work for does have a mechanism for dealing with this kind of thing. It doesn't involve the call handler, other than they need to pass the information on. People who specialise in investigating allegations of wrongdoing will decide what to do next - although if it's just an allegation with no evidence of wrong-doing that may well be nothing. The call handler won't know the outcome, neither will the person who reported it.

If the OP has been a victim of fraud, they should report this to their own bank (where the fraudulent/scam transaction was made from). As part of their process the other bank will be informed. This is more likely to result in action, because between the two banks they are more likely to have evidence of any wrongdoing that's occured (and yes, banks can share information in these circumstances, and no, it's not a breach of GDPR). 

TheBanker

PS: I worked in a call centre years ago. We used to get customers insisting on a reference number for things we didn't allocate reference numbers to. If the customer was particularly insistant, we'd just make up a random number to get rid of them

EarthBoy

Section62 said:

EarthBoy said:

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'.

Of course, but from the very limited information we've been given, the OP hasn't suffered any fraud themselves.  

EarthBoy

TheBanker said:

PS: I worked in a call centre years ago. We used to get customers insisting on a reference number for things we didn't allocate reference numbers to. If the customer was particularly insistant, we'd just make up a random number to get rid of them

I've worked in two different call centres and neither of them have given reference numbers for complaints; they're just logged under the caller's name and address.

Section62

EarthBoy said:

TheBanker said:

PS: I worked in a call centre years ago. We used to get customers insisting on a reference number for things we didn't allocate reference numbers to. If the customer was particularly insistant, we'd just make up a random number to get rid of them

I've worked in two different call centres and neither of them have given reference numbers for complaints; they're just logged under the caller's name and address.

Were either of them involved in a regulated activity like banking?

I've not worked in banking myself, but have managed teams involved in enforcement/investigations, including suspected fraud.  It was a basic principle of what we did that each contact/case could be uniquely identified in some way - in part to guard against call handlers going rogue and deciding for themselves what information/cases would be ignored and which would be followed up.  This is why I find it inconceivable that someone calling a bank to report suspected fraud would be given the response the OP says they got, and the idea being floated that such a call wouldn't be logged and generate some kind of unique ID just doesn't sound right to me.

TheBanker doesn't say how long ago their experience was, but I would be amazed if today a financial services organisation would condone a member of staff giving a caller a 'fake' reference instead of explaining that no reference was allocated to the contact.  What happens when the customer calls back giving the reference number only to be told it doesn't exist?

born_again

Section62 said:

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.

Internal investigations, where system or a rep has flagged up a issue are totally different to a random 3rd party alleging something against a customer.

As a non customer there is no account to log a complaint against.
So anything would have to be paper based. Would be passed to the complaints team who would deal as they see fit.

Which is why reporting to the police is the way forward as they have the power of investigation. Banks do not. 

I get people saying are you not going to request CCTV on issues. Which a bank has no more power to do than anyone else, unless they are internal camera's. Rr investigate a retailer over issues, again this is not in a banks remit.

masonic

born_again said:

Internal investigations, where system or a rep has flagged up a issue are totally different to a random 3rd party alleging something against a customer.

I'd also imagine in this situation, the bank would need to be extremely wary of it being malicious and certain they were not being used as an instrument of harassment or financial abuse perpetrated by the complainant. That would not end well for the bank.

Section62

masonic said:

born_again said:

Internal investigations, where system or a rep has flagged up a issue are totally different to a random 3rd party alleging something against a customer.

I'd also imagine in this situation, the bank would need to be extremely wary of it being malicious and they were not being used as an instrument of harassment by the complainant. That would not end well for the bank.

Agreed, which is one of the reasons I'm suggesting that a bank not logging calls of this nature is inconceivable.  The bank would have difficulty in discerning whether or not a report was genuine or part of a pattern of harassment if they weren't keeping records of such calls.

The weight attached to a call from a concerned member of the public may be different to that of a member of branch staff or a computer algorithm, but I doubt any FCA regulated firm would just discard the information at the first point of contact.  TheBanker's comment confirms what I expected - that the call handler would log the information and pass it on to someone else to deal with.

Section62

born_again said:

As a non customer there is no account to log a complaint against.
So anything would have to be paper based. Would be passed to the complaints team who would deal as they see fit.

At the start of the thread eskbanker helpfully linked to the appropriate section of the FCA handbook.  You don't have to be a customer (with an account number) in order to make a complaint. (which actually answers the OP's question, and could have been the end of the thread).

Whilst it is conceivable a bank would run an entirely separate paper-based complaints process for non-customers in order to comply with the FCA rules, might it be possible they'd go for the more efficient option of just configuring their computer-based complaints management system so complaints could be logged without needing an account number?