Why are banks still failing to prioritise their customers?

Due to the prevalence of miss selling and outright fraud it is essential that banks with credit cards deliver the correct paperwork with the relevant questions by first class mail if not by recorded delivery within three weeks at the outside. Documentation should include consideration of money back guarantee claims and section 75 claims. My recent experiences indicate that nobody should assume that either the cc company or the FSA is on the side of customers

I don’t think Convos should get political but it might be worth remembering who was in power when the crisis hit.

Not really. I’d suspect you’d have to go back to whomever loosened the rules under which the banks operate.

All governments have the ability to make the appropriate rules if they see fit. I doubt when things are going well, borrowing is up so spending is high, house prices rise so everyone feels wealthy, and the Government of the day can be profligate with the taxes, that they have the guts to bow to common sense. I seem to remember a “light touch” being applied when regulation was mentioned. Followed by a note to say there was no money left. A pity we entrust the running of our country to children (no, that maligns kids). 🙂

Modern day ‘highway robbery’: with the difference being, instead of firearms they use very low interest rates for savers: combined with UNNECESSARILY exorbitant and EXCESSIVE charges: while, at the same time, ALLOWING stock brokers and associates, unregulated and uncontrolled FREEDOM to GAMBLE in diverse CASINO stock markets where they, regardless of success or failure , ARE ‘rewarded’ by CRIMINALLY exorbitant bonuses.

“and scrap these rediculous bonus’s.” Would those be the ones being paid to the CEO of Which? and his three mates last year? £2.24m.

If you are a subscriber you can become n Ordinary Member to do something about it. When a charity goes wrong …

We appear to have a culture of giving bonuses to people for simply doing the job they were employed for. I would have thought “increasing turnover” was part of the job description; actually I’d prefer “increasing the profits”. Providing bonuses can distort the way business is done; when our salespeople were given bonus targets they were not too bothered about profits, just turnover, so would try anything to reduce prices to ensure they won an order.

I’d generally pay people a sensible wage for doing their job properly.

I agree on paying a sensible wage for doing a job properly, though I’m not sure about increasing profits because this is so often associated with poor customer service, poor workmanship and so on. In my job we had annual staff appraisals, where there was an opportunity to discuss performance and responsibilities. I believe it is vital to have people doing a job they enjoy, can cope with and one that provides sufficient challenge to keep them motivated.

My comment in the context of Which? was that its aim should be to increase profits, not turnover. If increasing turnover reduces profits (by, for example, injudicious decisions) then we suffer from a reduced service. However, I think adequate salary should be all that is necessary to motivate someone.

We can agree that people need to be paid a sensible wage but I don’t believe that even a good salary always provides adequate motivation or job satisfaction and have met many who have moved to lower paid jobs. For example, my first PhD student had a couple of highly paid jobs in the brewing industry but took big pay cut to get back into research. He finds it expensive to live in Paris but is financially secure thanks to his previous income and is enjoying running a research lab.

I got falsely accused , arrested and falsely detained for allegedly downloading child pornography because my cc company had not followed my written instructions to close my account. The bank eventually supplied documentary proof that no CC transactions had been made on the months in question and that the bank had failed to follow my instructions to close the account. Police demanded to conduct a search of my premises without a warrant on grounds that I had invited them into my home before asking what business they were engaged in. I had assumed they were there to tell me that a family member had had an accident. They used recently approved terrorist legislation to justify false charges and false arrest On reflection I should have sued the Bank

Quite so Amanda. Due to these “antiquated laws” it is easier for us to drop our bank than for our bank to drop us – they don’t have a contractual headlock on us like the other companies that supply us with services.

I think this would be a very effective counter-measure and probably popular. Presumably the internal battery will last a reasonable period before a new card is required. It has always concerned me that we have to give the security number on credit and debit cards when ordering something over the telephone where there is no encryption system in place. So much crime starts on the inside of companies and this development should thwart much of that.

In the same article I read that – with Cyber Monday coming up – “Police are warning on-line shoppers to be extra careful, as many promising-looking bargains on the web are simply criminal deceptions aimed at tricking people into entering sensitive bank card details, which will then be used to commit fraud“.