One of the downsides of our technology-driven lives is having to remember far too many passwords. Forced to come up with ones sufficiently complicated to thwart the criminals, it’s often us who are frozen out due to our inability to recall a specific one.
And so it was with Maria Soares, co-owner of a Rosebank coffee shop, when she sat down at her computer recently do an inter-account transfer: R750 000 from her Standard Bank credit card account into another account with the same bank.
Having got her electronic banking password wrong three times, her account was blocked and she was forced to go to the bank’s Rosebank branch to change her password.
“As I was explaining to the consultant what I wanted to do, he didn’t let me finish, saying that he’d do the transfer there, in the bank,” Soares told In Your Corner.
“At no time did he advise me that there would be a charge.”
That was a rather large omission, as it turned out.
Had Soares emerged from the bank with a new password and done the transfer with a few clicks of her own, it would have cost her nothing.
But because those few clicks were made by a bank employee on her behalf - at his suggestion – it cost her a whopping R11285. She could have bought a return air ticket to spend Christmas in New York for less.
We South Africans are accustomed to being stung with hefty fees at every turn, but this one’s in a special league.
Even the branch staff seemed “pretty shocked” when Soares complained about it, she said. “But they said there was nothing they could do; I’d have to contact the card division.”
So she did, and was told that she ought to have been advised by the branch that a charge of 1.3% would apply to the transfer.
And to complicate matters, the bank’s credit card fee brochure states that that inter-account transfers over the counter at a branch are charged at R42.
Next, Soares emailed the bank’s complaints resolution department, and in response she got a call from a consultant. It was an inconvenient time for Soares, so the consultant said she’d call her the next day.
“That didn’t happen, so I emailed them again – no response.
“I am not sure if I am an isolated case or if this is their general modus operandi with unsuspecting clients,” Soares said.
Making a mistake is not the issue – failing to fix it, repeatedly, is.
I raised Soares’ case with Standard Bank, questioning both the fee and the lack of disclosure around it, particularly as Soares did go to the branch with the intention of having a staff member do the inter-account transfer for her.
This was the first response I got: “Standard Bank has looked into Ms Soares' query and can confirm that the charges were applied in error.
“We have been in contact with Ms Soares to resolve the matter. We sincerely apologise for the frustration the error caused.”
A classic “say as little as possible” corporate response.
More probing on my part had the bank confirming that the fee should have been just R42. Soares has been refunded that R11285 in full.
“The error and delay in resolving Ms Soares’ query is the result of a service issue and we take full responsibility for it. “We are working to address the issues that are impacting on the way our customers experience the bank.”
CONTACT: Email: consumer@knowler.co.za
Twitter: @wendyknowler
Pork promises didn't fly
CONFINING pregnant sows to tiny stalls during their entire 16-week gestation, allowing them only to stand up and lie down, but no other movement, not even the ability to turn around, has long been considered inhumane.
If the National Council of SPCA had its way, the practice would have been outlawed by now, but local pork producers have committed to phase out sow stalls only by 2020.
Woolworths committed to working with its suppliers to phase out the practice sooner, promising that “Kinder to Sows” stickers would appear on fresh pork packs from September 2014; on Woolworths-branded fresh, processed and cured products such as bacon and sausages by the end of 2014, and all other pork-containing deli products such as ham, pizzas, sandwiches and pies by the end of July this year.
Food activists have been quick to point out that the deadlines haven’t been met.
Responding, Woolworths said while its sow friendly pork did go on sale by September last year, it had failed to meet the other deadlines, although its farmers had cut pregnant sow stall time by half.
“We are still committed to ensuring all our sows spend a maximum one week in stalls,” the company said, but we don’t have a new deadline yet.” (Once bitten…)
Why the delay? Mainly the cost implications: “The farmers are trying to balance a wide range of concerns including animal welfare, labour issues, land reform, feed and a range of other input costs,” Woolworths said.
It’s never a good idea to make public promises when you’re not 100% sure you can keep them.
The fine print that robs us
And so it was with Maria Soares, co-owner of a Rosebank coffee shop, when she sat down at her computer recently do an inter-account transfer: R750 000 from her Standard Bank credit card account into another account with the same bank.
Having got her electronic banking password wrong three times, her account was blocked and she was forced to go to the bank’s Rosebank branch to change her password.
“As I was explaining to the consultant what I wanted to do, he didn’t let me finish, saying that he’d do the transfer there, in the bank,” Soares told In Your Corner.
“At no time did he advise me that there would be a charge.”
That was a rather large omission, as it turned out.
Had Soares emerged from the bank with a new password and done the transfer with a few clicks of her own, it would have cost her nothing.
But because those few clicks were made by a bank employee on her behalf - at his suggestion – it cost her a whopping R11285. She could have bought a return air ticket to spend Christmas in New York for less.
We South Africans are accustomed to being stung with hefty fees at every turn, but this one’s in a special league.
Even the branch staff seemed “pretty shocked” when Soares complained about it, she said. “But they said there was nothing they could do; I’d have to contact the card division.”
So she did, and was told that she ought to have been advised by the branch that a charge of 1.3% would apply to the transfer.
And to complicate matters, the bank’s credit card fee brochure states that that inter-account transfers over the counter at a branch are charged at R42.
Next, Soares emailed the bank’s complaints resolution department, and in response she got a call from a consultant. It was an inconvenient time for Soares, so the consultant said she’d call her the next day.
“That didn’t happen, so I emailed them again – no response.
“I am not sure if I am an isolated case or if this is their general modus operandi with unsuspecting clients,” Soares said.
Making a mistake is not the issue – failing to fix it, repeatedly, is.
I raised Soares’ case with Standard Bank, questioning both the fee and the lack of disclosure around it, particularly as Soares did go to the branch with the intention of having a staff member do the inter-account transfer for her.
This was the first response I got: “Standard Bank has looked into Ms Soares' query and can confirm that the charges were applied in error.
“We have been in contact with Ms Soares to resolve the matter. We sincerely apologise for the frustration the error caused.”
A classic “say as little as possible” corporate response.
More probing on my part had the bank confirming that the fee should have been just R42. Soares has been refunded that R11285 in full.
“The error and delay in resolving Ms Soares’ query is the result of a service issue and we take full responsibility for it. “We are working to address the issues that are impacting on the way our customers experience the bank.”
CONTACT: Email: consumer@knowler.co.za
Twitter: @wendyknowler
Pork promises didn't fly
CONFINING pregnant sows to tiny stalls during their entire 16-week gestation, allowing them only to stand up and lie down, but no other movement, not even the ability to turn around, has long been considered inhumane.
If the National Council of SPCA had its way, the practice would have been outlawed by now, but local pork producers have committed to phase out sow stalls only by 2020.
Woolworths committed to working with its suppliers to phase out the practice sooner, promising that “Kinder to Sows” stickers would appear on fresh pork packs from September 2014; on Woolworths-branded fresh, processed and cured products such as bacon and sausages by the end of 2014, and all other pork-containing deli products such as ham, pizzas, sandwiches and pies by the end of July this year.
Food activists have been quick to point out that the deadlines haven’t been met.
Responding, Woolworths said while its sow friendly pork did go on sale by September last year, it had failed to meet the other deadlines, although its farmers had cut pregnant sow stall time by half.
“We are still committed to ensuring all our sows spend a maximum one week in stalls,” the company said, but we don’t have a new deadline yet.” (Once bitten…)
Why the delay? Mainly the cost implications: “The farmers are trying to balance a wide range of concerns including animal welfare, labour issues, land reform, feed and a range of other input costs,” Woolworths said.
It’s never a good idea to make public promises when you’re not 100% sure you can keep them.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos