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

masonic

Section62 said:

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.

Yes, I'm also in agreement that the information wouldn't just be discarded.

born_again

Section62 said:

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?

Some systems used are so old, that it is not possible 🤷‍♀️

TheBanker

Section62 said:

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?

The bank I work for at the moment has a way of recording complaints from non-customers. They are logged using the person's name and post code and allocated a complaint reference number.

However we would not use that for logging the concern raised by the OP because that is not an eligible complaint. It is an allegation against another customer. It would be recorded in a different way and passed for investigation. And it would have a reference number but that's an internal reference, not one to be given to external parties. These internal reference numbers would be no use anyway, since they would not be able to use it to get an update (unlike a complaints reference number, which is useful if they need to call back for an update, or with more information, or to use in a covering letter if they are sending in supporting documents...).

TheBanker

born_again said:

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.

In terms of retailers, if information comes to light that suggests fraud is taking place at a particular retailer, the bank will investigate. This is more likely to be identified through analysis of their fraud claim data than a random third party calling up. Either way, the bank will investigate, this may involve liaising with other banks, and/or Visa/Mastercard, and possibly the retailer's own security team. The bank can't request CCTV, but the police can. There is a dedicated team within the City of London police who take referrals from banks where a potential fraud ring is identified.

TheBanker

Section62 said:

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?

In this case, it wouldn't have made any difference. Even if the OP had been given a reference number and called back with it, they would not be given any information.

Section62

TheBanker said:

Section62 said:

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?

In this case, it wouldn't have made any difference. Even if the OP had been given a reference number and called back with it, they would not be given any information.

...which somewhat misses the point that the OP never said they wanted to be able to call back and ask for information.

Their expectation was to be given some kind of reference number which would act as some kind of evidence the call had been logged. (not withstanding claims that references could just be made up to get rid of them)

I'm putting 2&2 here, but I suspect the OP's concern is the call handler may not have logged the information (not unusual for call centre staff to be disinterested in anything other than scripted issues) and fobbed them off by saying that non-customers cannot make complaints.

Regardless, it sounds from what the OP says that the bank employee they spoke to hasn't done a great customer service job - for example if they have the same policy as your bank they could have explained the fraud report was logged but there was no reference to give them.

The fact the person making the report cannot get further information about the report shouldn't preclude them being given a (valid) report reference number.  E.g. despite the FCA not providing feedback to people reporting issues to them, they will give a reference number in case the caller subsequently has additional information to give. Likewise, if the OP found out something else about this situation (including perhaps discovering they were mistaken) then having a reference for the call/report would help no end in matching the new information to the previous call.  A call reference number is not some kind of super-secret information which cannot be divulged to the person making the call - most organisations I've dealt with just consider it to be good customer service to log calls and give a reference to the caller.

If the OP wanted a complaint/call reference so they could call back to obtain information about the investigation then they were wrong to expect that.  But they never said that, and the negativity towards the OP (e.g. they should mind their own business) and the assumptions being made about them have clouded the key point - i.e. that someone who isn't a customer should be able to call a bank to report information and be treated the same way a customer would.

Fraud costs us all money.  I don't understand why anyone who uses MSE would be opposed to someone reporting their (genuine) suspicions to the bank or the police.

masonic

Being given a reference is no guarantee that anything has been logged. If the OP came away with doubts about the call handler taking them seriously, whether or not a reference had been given, they should err on the side of caution and contact the police.

I don't think the OP should be told they should mind their own business, but it is right to highlight that they are not entitled to any information about what happens next.

One point where I will disagree with you is that non-customers should be treated on an equal footing with customers. Banks have not gone through KYC with non-customers. That immediately puts the bank at a disadvantage.

Imagine if I phone up your bank and tell them incriminating things about some of your transactions and ask them to investigate. That should not be treated the same way as if you called your bank and said the same things.

Fraud may cost us all money, but false accusations can be immensely damaging too. A bank will not have the legal powers to carry out a full investigation, or obtain records that may put the accusations in context, which may support the accusation, or point to the accuser pursuing a campaign of harassment against the accused. This is not in any way related to the OP's specific scenario, just pointing out why the two parties should not be treated as equivalent in the eyes of the bank.

The bank should record the information supplies, and independently decide what to do next. But this process would be different than logging a customer query or complaint against the bank.

But the whole issue above can be avoided by reporting criminal activity to the police rather than a bank.

Section62

masonic said:

Being given a reference is no guarantee that anything has been logged. If the OP came away with doubts about the call handler taking them seriously, whether or not a reference had been given, they should err on the side of caution and contact the police.

Not a guarantee, no.  But unless the call handler is willing to put their job on the line by lying it does make it more likely the call has been logged properly.

One point where I will disagree with you is that non-customers should be treated on an equal footing with customers. Banks have not gone through KYC with non-customers. That immediately puts the bank at a disadvantage.

I don't mean how the reported information is assessed and handled, but rather the way in which the individual is treated during the contact - i.e. with politeness, honesty, respect.  A caller shouldn't be dismissed, misled, or lied to just because they aren't a customer.

Customers are just as capable of malicious reports as non-customers. KYC only goes so far, it won't necessarily help the bank understand the motivations of the caller. The weight attached to the information provided should be part of the back office assessment.

jimjames

EarthBoy said:

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.  

And from the initial "potentially" comment there may never have been any actual fraud in the first place.

Section62

jimjames said:

EarthBoy said:

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.  

And from the initial "potentially" comment there may never have been any actual fraud in the first place.

...which is why I think it probably made sense for the OP to go to the bank (in the first instance) rather than direct to the police.  Let the bank figure out whether there is something untoward going on.