Saturday, 28 May 2011

Customer or not customer, that is the question.

Red mist already. Even if I avoid the newspapers, the red mist comes in the inbox.

So if you are a victim of identity theft, you are not allowed to complain because the bank where the fraudster has an account in your name will argue that you are not a customer of theirs. So you cannot complain because customer service obviously does not apply to non-customers.

However, they will pursue you for the money, claiming that the card/account/whatever was not fraudulently obtained.

So you are a customer who owes them money but you are not a customer so you can't complain. Doublethink supreme.

What gets the red mist rising is that a judge has declared that you cannot complain because you are not a customer, yet the bank can still chase you for the fraudster's spending as if you were the customer, and the defence did not pick up on this.

If a court of law declares you are not a customer of the bank, use that to tell the bank to shove their demands where the sun don't shine and if you can't find a lawyer who can blow the whole thing to ribbons, try narrowing your search to those with an IQ above the drool layer.

There must be some.

Right. I'll have to ignore the Emails too. This work must be done.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Quite weird, LI. The actual judgement can be accessed via your link 'a judge has declared......'

In section 10 of the judgement, it is said that the lady making the claim (can I say X?) was actually a CUSTOMER of Nat West Bank already (the bank was claiming that she owed them £10000). At first, the Ombudsman refused to consider her complaint against the bank (because, although she was 'a customer' as regards other activity, she herself said that she was not 'a customer' in respect of the loan), but changed his mind, and told the bank to squash the loan. The Judge said that she was indeed 'a customer' as regards the Nat West.

The real problem was with this other loan company, MBNA. She had no existing relationship with that company and claimed not to have established a relationship with them. If that is true, then she is indeed not a customer, and so she cannot complain about that firm, since the law, as regards the Ombudsman, requires her to be 'a customer'. The weird thing is that the fact that the company regards her as 'a customer' is irrelevant.

So the judge was right in the way that he interpreted the law. IT IS THE LAW WHICH IS WRONG!

Does X have a remedy? I would say so. I would say that, if her identity was definitely stolen, then she can genuinely go to the police and accuse MBNA of 'demanding money with menaces', which is criminal. In that case, MBNA would have to show that they were demanding the money from the right person.

opinions powered by