They're With Us

Is it my imagination, or is the financial industry becoming more mercenary and considerably more paranoid than it used to be? It seems some financial institutions just plain aren't as nice as they used to be to each other. Hopefully the customer is still treated as top banana, but when it comes to dealing with other financial institutions, bad manners are in evidence more often than in the past.

Take photos from ATM CCTV. Granted we're a little skittish right now about the privacy situation, and giving out information. But you have to have some empathy with the bank that has been taken to the cleaners by an unscrupulous customer who has been blatantly stealing from the bank by using another financial institution's ATM and then claiming a lost or stolen card. The regulation favors the customer on this little scheme. So the victim bank asks the ATM bank for pictures of the person making the transaction.

What are they told?
A. "Sorry. Our lawyer says we can't give out that information without a subpoena."

B. "It costs a lot to have the picture run, and our tape has been used 25 times anyway, so the picture is no good."

C. "You can have the picture, but we'll have to be indemnified and held harmless, and oh-by-the-way there is a $100 processing fee."(Note - These are actual responses reported to this editor!)

When I was writing the training page, I figured I just may as well include the "under $100" procedure, as it is becoming so very common. The explanation is, "We don't bother even adjusting any claim under $100 - we just write it off." If the "stuck" drawee bank wants to pursue the claim - even if the liability and the fault is with the depositary bank - as in an encoding error or a forged endorsement - then the claimant bank will have to fork over a $35 or $50 "research fee." One bank said they sent a forged endorsement claim and an affidavit with the forged check for $80 to the depositary bank, and got a reimbursement check back for $30 and a receipt for a $50 "research fee"to made the adjustment!

Let's see. That means the depositary bank very possibly charged the check back to their customer, recovering their $80, and though they were at fault and liable under UCC, pocketed the $50 at the expense of the drawee bank - which had nothing to do with the negotiation of the check in the first place! What a neat deal!

Maybe we should take a second look at the way we express 'customer service' to our fellow bankers. The Privacy Act and the Patriot Act have perhaps created a little paranoia in the ranks. Let's not forget the competition is still on 'our' side!

Copyright © 2003 Bankers' Hotline. Originally appeared in Bankers' Hotline, Vol. 13, No. 9, 12/03