# Rip Off charged €48.50 by Bank of Ireland for a duplicate bank statement!



## BrixnMortar (5 Dec 2005)

I have just been charged €48.50 by Bank of Ireland for a duplicate bank statement.  No one told about these charges prior to obtaining this statement.  Can anyone advise as to what I should do?  I can't describe how annoyed I am.  Who can I complain to?


----------



## Humpback (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> I have just been charged €48.50 by Bank of Ireland for a duplicate bank statement. No one told about these charges prior to obtaining this statement. Can anyone advise as to what I should do? I can't describe how annoyed I am. Who can I complain to?


 
You might not have been told, but if you check the T's&C's of your account, you're probably going to find that these charges are detailed in there.

In that case, there's probably not a whole lot you can do about it, unfortunately.


----------



## Markjbloggs (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> In that case, there's probably not a whole lot you can do about it, unfortunately.


 
Oh yes there is - change banks !!  And let them know why !!


----------



## Humpback (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Fair enough. But the next bank you go to will have the same terms and conditions, and they'll charge you for duplicate statements also - in my experience, even if they are providing a "free banking" account.

Moving banks in this case is an over reaction. 
"Dear Mr.Bank Manager, 
I'm changing banks because I don't like the T's&C's that I actually signed up to when I opened my bank account. 
And now that they're being enforced on me, I'm surprised (either because I didn't read the small print, or because I forgot) and upset, so I'm leaving.
Good bye."

The ideal thing to have done in this situation was to have kept the original bank statements in the first place, and not get into the position of needing dupes at all.


----------



## moneyhoney (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Yes all banks charge in the region of 2.50 - 3.50 per page for duplicate statements. Quite ridiculous. If only internet statements were allowable for loan/mortgage purposes.....


----------



## irishpancake (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

According to the latest [broken link removed], BoI charge €3.80 for first page, and €2.50 for each subsequent page of Duplicate Statements. Other Banks charge similar amounts.


----------



## Theo (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Have you tried asking them to waive it?  No harm in asking, sometimes you can be surprised............


----------



## Swallows (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

If first page costs 3.80 and subsequent 2.50 then how many pages did you get for €48.50.? well it sounds like a lot of money, I would do what the other person suggested and ask to have some  of the cost waived.


----------



## markowitzman (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

dear bank manager
am very dis-satisfied .........
I am contemplating changing bank ........I have been a loyal boi customer for x years.
I demand your immediate attention on the matter of this charge
If I have not received written confirmation that the fee has been waived by close of business ......I will be left with no option to instruct you to close my account etcetc
Yours


----------



## RainyDay (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Don't see it as a rip-off. As a bank customer, I'd prefer that the banks levy the customers who ask for duplicates, rather than spreading this cost against all customers (including me). No harm in asking for it to be waived or reduced, but it's a bit OTT to call it a rip-off.


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				markowitzman said:
			
		

> If I have not received written confirmation that the fee has been waived by close of business ......etcetc


I have to hand to you, markowitzman — you don't mess around!


----------



## markowitzman (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Zero tolerance!!
Seriously if they are going to charge 50 euro for a printed page requiring three (if even) clicks of a mouse you have to question it.
I feel they will respect you more for acting and it makes them realise you are watching thinkgs and are not a soft touch.
RainyDay's point is valid though, they are perfectly entitled to charge but I still cant believe they charged 50 euro for one month. Sounds more like a fee for a year's statements.


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

I've often felt like an awful old 'squirrel', dutifully stuffing away all the monthly bills/statements into a big envelope (stored in work, admittedly, not at home!) — but every now and then I'm glad I have!  

Fully agree with you on the 'zero tolerance' bit. I mean, _'they'_ do, don't they...?


----------



## markowitzman (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

Exactly doc! I must admit I have got a few "close of business on so and so date or else!" letters. Not pleasant to receive! May do the trick in this case. If bank manager is a reasonable soul he should waive it. If you really wanted to act the mick you could  say your accountant requests a list of all bank charges incurred since the account was opened just in case this was not an isolated case of overcharging.


----------



## Humpback (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				markowitzman said:
			
		

> If you really wanted to act the mick you could say your accountant requests a list of all bank charges incurred since the account was opened just in case this was not an isolated case of overcharging.


 
Was there was an implication in the OP that there was overcharging - i.e. charging more than specific cost?

My take was that it was just that the OP felt that the cost was expensive (a ripoff!) for the service he was getting.

markowitzman, back to your letter to the bank manager, I would fully agree with you if it was something that the bank had done wrong. I'd be outta there like a shot. 

However, in this particular situation, the bank are doing what they said they would do in their T's&C's, which the OP accepted when he opened the bank. Move on, fair enough, but it's not the banks fault in this situation.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*

I worked in a bank many years ago and I have to say that the amount of people who used to request duplicate statements was huge. I often asked them what they did with the originals and practically all of the answers were "Ah! I just threw them in the bin" with a loud guffaw. I have to say I got great pleasure in telling them that there was now a charge for this service. I honestly believe that a charge is justified for the *work* involved. And there's the nub.


----------



## Alex (6 Dec 2005)

i think that the figure mentioned is a lot of money. how can printing off a piece of paper be so difficult/expensive? there is no way i would pay an amount like that. a mini statement springs to mind. i am not trying to speak for others but i myself think that is terrible. thank god i save my statements. i have every single statement from when my accounts were first opened. if you can, try to keep all statements you get through the mail and put them away safe. BrixnMortar, i see that you bank with bank of ireland. would accessing your accounts online be of any help? you should be able to print the information off yourself.

Alex.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Dec 2005)

Perhaps in the interests of clarity, BrixnMortar could possibly answer this question posed above by Swallows



> If first page costs 3.80 and subsequent 2.50 then how many pages did you get for €48.50.?


----------



## newgirl (7 Dec 2005)

Permanent TSB don't charge for this, I requested one last week and was told by the girl on their telephone banking service that they don't charge for them.


----------



## Theo (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				BOXtheFOX said:
			
		

> I worked in a bank many years ago and I have to say that the amount of people who used to request duplicate statements was huge. I often asked them what they did with the originals and practically all of the answers were "Ah! I just threw them in the bin" with a loud guffaw. I have to say I got great pleasure in telling them that there was now a charge for this service. I honestly believe that a charge is justified for the *work* involved. And there's the nub.


 
Clearly, the bank you worked for were very customer oriented - NOT!  if you treated your customers that way in other industries, u'd be out of business.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Dec 2005)

> if you treated your customers that way in other industries, u'd be out of business.



if you do work for your customers in other industries, without charging them for it, u'd be out of business.


----------



## 10to1 (7 Dec 2005)

Seems to me there's a few bank emplyees on this thread by their defence of the banks. The charge is outrageous. Yes we sign the terms and conditions but come on how many of us really expect to have to ask for a dup. statement. I would talk nicely to them first and then threaten to pull your business. I've found huge discretion being exercised even at the teller level. By the way - my aib mortgage was approved using internet statements


----------



## Humpback (7 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> Seems to me there's a few bank emplyees on this thread by their defence of the banks.


 
I probably appear to defend the banks, but I don't work for one. I'm merely pointing out the facts of the situation.



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> The charge is outrageous.


 
Don't disagree with you on that one. Surely our OP will now remember to keep their bank statements rather than throwing them out in future.



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> Yes we sign the terms and conditions but come on how many of us really expect to have to ask for a dup. statement.


 
Besides the point. If they'd read the T's& C's and thought, wow,that's expensive for a duplicate statement, maybe they'd have kept them from the beginning.



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> I would talk nicely to them first and then threaten to pull your business. I've found huge discretion being exercised even at the teller level.


 
Absolutely try this. And if you get a jobsworth on the day, hard luck. And if you get someone nice, even better. And if you get no joy either way, be prepared for the floods of tears once the bank hears you'll pull your business. 

Speaking of pulling your business, if people really had the convictions of their morals (or is that vice versa  ), Bank of Ireland, AIB and permanentTSB would have no customers left at all over the scandals in recent years.


----------



## Theo (7 Dec 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> if you do work for your customers in other industries, without charging them for it, u'd be out of business.


 
But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the bank has already charged the customer in the first instance.  Banks really need to be taught a lesson in the modern age - this is an era of competition and banks should feel privileged to have a customer's business, not the other way round.  
Unfortunately, my experience has been that there is still a culture of arrogance evident in the 2 big Irish banks.


----------



## CCOVICH (7 Dec 2005)

So if you buy a paper in the morning in a newsagents, throw it away at lunchtime, but then decide you want it again in the evening, you can go back to the shop and demand another one for the same day without paying for it?


----------



## 10to1 (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off charged €48.50 by Bank of Ireland for a duplicate bank statement!*

Ronan you're obviously more organised than most. Bank statements should be available online. This would dispense with any need to request printed duplicates at the branch. This is just what the industry calls added value and to date you're right obviously not enough of us are kicking up but I suspect that tide is turning.CCOVICH the paper argument is weak. If the paper was 48.50 that'd be another matter.


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Dec 2005)

I have online banking for all my bank/building society accounts, and make full use of them. Interestingly, my humble EBS a/c allows me to generate 'tamper-proof' .pdf printouts of statements/interest earned on the savings a/c, right back to when I opened them — whereas my BoI a/c will only yield bockety old '12-point New Roman' sheets (with the right-hand side cut off, when you try to print them) for the previous 12 months. And my BoI Amex a/c still doesn't have any online facilities at all.

Just what are they paying all those 'IT Dept.' salaries for?


----------



## CCOVICH (7 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> CCOVICH the paper argument is weak. If the paper was 48.50 that'd be another matter.



It's not an argument.  It's a comparison.  Do people agree with the principle of paying for (official) duplicate statements, or just the cost?  The cost is outlined in advance, as others have pointed out.  How many pages did the OP get (I make it around 18 pages, based on €3.80 plus €2.50 per subsequent page).  If they wanted 2 pages, would it still be a rip-off?  Or what if they wanted 100?   

I keep my statements, so it's not just RDJ that is 'more organised than most'.

Does anyone actually know what is invloved in getting duplicate statements? I know that originals are printed via an automatic run.  Can they cost that time to the bank?  Any kind of manual intervention is costly.  For example, businesses are charged €12.70 (last time I looked) for an audit certificate.  This is an audit requirement every year.  So this kind of exercise is costly. 

Do as others have suggested and take action-threaten to take your business elsewhere, or find another bank, if it works, fair play.  One question-are these statements required for mortgage approval with another bank?  If so, well your own bank doesn't really have much to gain from holding on to you as a customer, do they?

It would be useful if customers could generate duplicate statements via online banking, but I guess it's easier to forge documents in that way.  A balance needs to be struck between convenience and security, in the interests of customers.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> Seems to me there's a few bank emplyees on this thread by their defence of the banks.


I find it a bit offensive that you feel the need to cast aspersions of this nature. If you spent a bit more time on AAM, you would know that most of those 'defending the banks' (though I don't actually agree that it's a defence) most certainly are not bank employees.

As a bank customer, I'm glad that I'm not paying for the costs of branch staff to dig out statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements. I'm glad I'm not paying the IT costs to develop systems to print duplicate statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> Ronan you're obviously more organised than most.


 
Hardly. What does it take to throw all correspondance into a box under a bed once you've looked at it when it arrives originally. I don't think it takes any organisation at all to keep all your statements.



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> Bank statements should be available online.



They are if you avail of online banking which I believe that most banks in Ireland are now providing.



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> This would dispense with any need to request printed duplicates at the branch. This is just what the industry calls added value



I think that part of the issue here is that though banks provide online statement printing facilities, many of them don't accept these later as proof of actual bank statements when applying for bank loans, credit cards and mortgages.




			
				Theo said:
			
		

> But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the bank has already charged the customer in the first instance.


 
Yes. You're charged for your original bank statement which you receive in the post. You pay for this with your fees - it's your choice then to waste money by throwing it out necessitating the need for a duplicate somewhere down the road.



			
				Theo said:
			
		

> Banks really need to be taught a lesson in the modern age


 
Funniest comment I've seen here in a long time.


----------



## markowitzman (8 Dec 2005)

I think next weeks prime time exposee on bank charging will help in teaching the lesson Theo refers to. Yes it will be funny Ronan.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

markowitzman said:
			
		

> I think next weeks prime time exposee on bank charging will help in teaching the lesson Theo refers to.


 
Like we've seen the garages allegedly involved in cartel pricing learn their lesson this week???? I think not!!!!


----------



## markowitzman (8 Dec 2005)

I think the competition authority are actively helping the motor industry as we speak in this regard! I am not anti-bank as they have been a huge help to me but it is not a level playing field I have found. The larger the account and the more price concious the client is the better the deal they get. I feel it should be charge everyone and waive no fees. At present it is charge you what we can and if you kick up we will waive. This engenders a lack of trust in the customer comapred to if the bank was upfront with it's charging structure FOR ALL.


----------



## 10to1 (9 Dec 2005)

Rainy Day but I simply can't understand why many contributors feel that a charge for duplicate statements is ok if it says so in the T's and C's. This seems ludicrous to me and leads me to believe that there is an element of bias in the contributions. 48.50 is totally unreasonable for a few sheets of paper. The time taken to retrieve the system electronically shouldn't be more than a minute and the paper and ink 1-2c a page. Banks looks for ways to exploit customers and I think we should question that. The fact that you and othes think it is ok because someone has misplaced their statement does little to force banks to change their policies. As I said in my earlier post AIB acceped my BOI internet banking records for mortgage purposes. Maybe they'd have insisted that an official copy be given if I ad my own acc with them so as they'd make the money. If we are to embrace online banking then the customer should be able to access all records necessary online not just some. Rainy day you say "As a bank customer, I'm glad that I'm not paying for the costs of branch staff to dig out statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements" and  "I'm glad I'm not paying the IT costs to develop systems to print duplicate statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements" and yet in your opening paragraph you say you find it a "bit offensive" that I feel the need to "cast aspersions of this nature" on you. Your comments on the public as lazy customers is dissapointing coming from your position as a Moderator. It clearly demonstates a lack of tolerance for others who may have many reasons for misplacing a statement and just out of laziness as you choose to see it. I suggest a little more tolerance and less of the "lazy" stle comments would be more appropriate. Oh and banks don't have to dig very far these days for statements. The IT systems that you mention are in place for many years now. It's just a case of access or lack of and why.


----------



## Vanilla (9 Dec 2005)

I also can't see a rip off here. A bank is a business like any other. It has to cover its costs and make a profit. Indeed they are responsible to their shareholders to make that profit. And they are more upfront than many businesses would be in telling you well in advance of their charges. Clients asking for copy documents is part and parcel of a solicitors office too. Many solicitors charge a scrivenery fee to provide this copy. Its very basic, but necessary. Firstly someone has to take the request by telephone or in person. Then the document has to be located, photocopied, replaced where it was and then either posted or handed to the client. That costs money in both overheads and time. That money has to be accounted for. I just don't see a rip off here.


----------



## MonsieurBond (9 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> As a bank customer, I'm glad that I'm not paying for the costs of branch staff to dig out statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements. I'm glad I'm not paying the IT costs to develop systems to print duplicate statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements.



I must say that I agree with the original poster that €2.80 or whatever it is per sheet for a reprint statement is an unreasonably high cost.

The bank has this information; it is provided online. I myself have applied for a mortgate using reprinted statements from Internet banking.

I do not keep my statements as I bank online. 

However, if I WAS required to produce original statements and not Internet copies to apply for a mortgage or whatever (and was not deterred by this request), I would be very aggrieved at a high cost to reprint the statement.

The bank HAS this info; they have an I.T. system in place to query it for their teller and back office staff; they have software which prints statements and have statement printers if special paper is required. 

If the information is recent (i.e. within 6 months or so and not archived to data warehouse), I for one do not see why a large fee is being charged for the reprinting service.

I can understand the idea of charging something non-trivial so as to discourage rampant misuse of the system due to laziness, but, the high costs spoken of above do seem excessive to me.

I think the bottom line is that the banks are being squeezed on "high profile" fees such as current account and daily transaction fees, but feel happy to charge high amounts for the lower visibility fees that affect fewer people. The fact that those fewer people then get it in the neck is not of concern.


----------



## MonsieurBond (9 Dec 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> I also can't see a rip off here. A bank is a business like any other. It has to cover its costs and make a profit. Indeed they are responsible to their shareholders to make that profit. And they are more upfront than many businesses would be in telling you well in advance of their charges. Clients asking for copy documents is part and parcel of a solicitors office too. Many solicitors charge a scrivenery fee to provide this copy. Its very basic, but necessary. Firstly someone has to take the request by telephone or in person. Then the document has to be located, photocopied, replaced where it was and then either posted or handed to the client. That costs money in both overheads and time. That money has to be accounted for. I just don't see a rip off here.



I doubt the banks' statement access and printing interface is as 20th century as the above example. www.365Online.ie has a statement viewing option - you just enter the start and end date and can filter on transaction type. I don't see why the bank could not add a "request paper printout" of the same information at a nominal rate. I also don't see why the same interface can not be made available to online customer support staff.


----------



## Vanilla (9 Dec 2005)

Well that's put me in my place! 20th Century indeed! Unfortunately while original title deeds, agreements and contracts exist no solicitors office will become paperless.

But aren't you overlooking the cost of running the database, the cost of setting it up in the first place, the staff cost, the overheads for those staff and buildings....


----------



## CCOVICH (9 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> The fact that you and othes think it is ok because someone has misplaced their statement does little to force banks to change their policies.


 
'Misplacing' a statement and throwing it in the bin deliberately are not the same thing.  I think anyone who has financial sense knows to keep bank statments, if only to ensure that they have backup in any disputes with the bank in the future.  Online records are only available for the past few months on AIB online banking, so it pays to keep statements.


----------



## BrixnMortar (9 Dec 2005)

Well as the original poster, I've come back to find a LOT of chat on the subject.  Just to clarify a few things.  The bank teller did not advise me of ANY charges at the time of the request. It was 6 months worth of statements. I do file my statements but have drawn down 2 mortgages this year and am in the process of doing 2 more equity releases, so I have required a number of sets of statements over the past year, that in some cases are not returned.  I think I receive statements on a quarterly basis and hence if you require up to date statements you have to pay, before obtaining the actual statement in the future.  In the past two cases I was not informed and not charged for statements.

In any case, the bank offered 'as a gesture of goodwill' to refund half of the amount.  I refused this offer as I did not think it was sufficient.  This post however seems to have struck a chord with nearly 1,000 viewers, so someone in BOI has probably noticed.  That can't be a bad thing can it?  

Here's my gripe for what it's worth:  Obviously banks need to charge for extra services.  There is a direct and absorbed cost in providing duplicate statements.  However, it is not €48.50. Its probably not even a tenth of that.  Duplicate statements should be charged for, but subject to a maximum amount (say €12).  Does that not seem fair?  And in all cases, customers should be clearly informed prior to this.  Clearly when I opened my bank account, I should have read the Ts and Cs, but I was 11 months old and needed somewhere to put a £5 postal order I received for my 1st birthday. As I couldn't read or walk, so prudent financial stewardship wasn't on my mind.


I will now be looking elsewhere for a new bank, as this is really the last straw.  I feel unloved by my bank.  Having said that I have lots of different loan, mortgage, savings accounts with lots of different banks and I have yet to find one bank that has any focus.  Although possibly NIB has a better grip on putting customers first.  Maybe I'll go to them - they've got free banking.  So, so long inertia, and so long BOI!  I wish everyone changed their banks more often - wouldn't we all get better deals then?!


----------



## 10to1 (9 Dec 2005)

*Re: Rip Off charged €48.50 by Bank of Ireland for a duplicate bank statement!*

Well done BrixMortar - that's the spirit vote with your feet. But make sure you tell BOI why you're leaving otherwise little changes.


----------



## dam099 (9 Dec 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> But aren't you overlooking the cost of running the database, the cost of setting it up in the first place, the staff cost, the overheads for those staff and buildings....


 
The database exists in any case, so the incremental cost here is probably the cost of taking the call, the cost of a staff member going onto the system and ordering the printout, the cost of the printing (including I guess the cost of the printer used as they probably need extras just to cope with the demand for duplicates) and paper and the cost to mail it out. This still is not trivial I suppose. I would have thought that if it was purely about the costs there should be a higher fixed charge for the first statement with a much lower charge for the subsequent pages (say EUR10.00 for the first page and then 0.10c per page thereafter). But then I suppose everyone who needed just the one page would feel aggrieved as they are probably being subsidised at the moment.

There is also probably an issue with whether the data is archived though as well. However I get the impression this may vary from bank to bank. Some posters talk about being able to see transactions online going back many years whereas the 2 banks I have had online banking with only go back about 6 months online so the remainder may be archived on tapes etc. which have to be retrieved which would further increase the costs.


----------



## Swallows (9 Dec 2005)

The Banks dont care any more if you vote with your feet. They will get as much money as they can out of you, and if you decide to change Banks  it will only be you who are inconvenienced. 

It wont be long either until the honeymoon is over with the new Bank and they will be up to the same tricks. Believe me I have been with a few over the years. This charge for statements is only a means of getting profits. We need to find another way of dealing with these institutions and play them at their own game.

They have plenty of money now so are not desperate for you to stay.They will soon have another customer to replace you.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> Rainy Day but I simply can't understand why many contributors feel that a charge for duplicate statements is ok if it says so in the T's and C's. This seems ludicrous to me and leads me to believe that there is an element of bias in the contributions. 48.50 is totally unreasonable for a few sheets of paper. The time taken to retrieve the system electronically shouldn't be more than a minute and the paper and ink 1-2c a page.


A wise man once said 'Don't shoot the messenger'. The equivalent from the AAM posting guidelines is 'Attack the post, not the poster'. The fact that you can't understand the views of others does not make it right for you to make unsupported and untrue allegations of bias. Such allegations are not welcome round here. If your posting approach is going to continue to involve unsupported allegations of this nature, I would respectfully suggest that you find another bulletin board for your posts. 



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> Banks looks for ways to exploit customers and I think we should question that. The fact that you and othes think it is ok because someone has misplaced their statement does little to force banks to change their policies.


You seem to assume that everyone wants to force the banks to change their policies. As explained above, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this policy, so I'm not trying to force the banks to change the policy. Any change to the policy would simply bury the costs and spread them across all customers. I'm far happier for the costs to be borne by the customers making such requests. The original poster isn't surprised that there was some cost involved, but didn't clarify that cost up-front. While I would criticise the bank for not making the cost clear up-front, the OP also shares that responsibility by not asking about the cost when making the request. And I don't accept that banks 'exploit their customers' - they do look for ways to make money from their customers, as I'd expect any profit-making business to do. If you don't want banks to make profits from you, then take your business elsewhere - it's simply, isn't it?



			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> Rainy day you say "As a bank customer, I'm glad that I'm not paying for the costs of branch staff to dig out statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements" and  "I'm glad I'm not paying the IT costs to develop systems to print duplicate statements for those lazy customers who can't be bothered to file their statements" and yet in your opening paragraph you say you find it a "bit offensive" that I feel the need to "cast aspersions of this nature" on you. Your comments on the public as lazy customers is dissapointing coming from your position as a Moderator. It clearly demonstates a lack of tolerance for others who may have many reasons for misplacing a statement and just out of laziness as you choose to see it. I suggest a little more tolerance and less of the "lazy" stle comments would be more appropriate.


Thanks for your feedback on my moderation style. I'll give it all the attention it deserves. Having spent 5+ years as a moderator here and participated in building one of Ireland's leading online communities, I'm honestly not all that worried about dissapointing someone who lashes out false allegations of bias unsupported by evidence when faced with an unpalatable message.  And please do explain in more detail what kind of good reasons exist for misplacing a statement, particularly in the context of the original request, where the poster is a very active customer of financial services (4 mortgage drawdowns in one year)?


			
				10to1 said:
			
		

> Oh and banks don't have to dig very far these days for statements. The IT systems that you mention are in place for many years now. It's just a case of access or lack of and why.


I'm glad to see that you have inside knowledge of the banks' IT systems. Specifically which banks were you referring to? How many years of data do they keep online? Are the statements printed centrally or at the branch? How do they monitor & audit access to accounts to prevent unauthorised access?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Dec 2005)

BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> There is a direct and absorbed cost in providing duplicate statements.  However, it is not €48.50. Its probably not even a tenth of that.  Duplicate statements should be charged for, but subject to a maximum amount (say €12).


 What do you estimate the cost of this service to be? Why cap it at €12? Why not €1 or €10 or €20 or €48.50?


----------



## Humpback (12 Dec 2005)

BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> The bank teller did not advise me of ANY charges at the time of the request. It was 6 months worth of statements.



Why didn't you ask? I assume you don't go into a shop and ask for something but not ask the price of it?



			
				BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> so I have required a number of sets of statements over the past year, that in some cases are not returned.



Why didn't you ask for these statements to be returned to you? Is it not standard practice for these documents of proof to be returned once they've had a look at them?



			
				BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> In any case, the bank offered 'as a gesture of goodwill' to refund half of the amount. I refused this offer as I did not think it was sufficient. This post however seems to have struck a chord with nearly 1,000 viewers, so someone in BOI has probably noticed. That can't be a bad thing can it?


 
If I was BOI at this stage, I'd tell you to take a running jump for turning down their gesture of goodwill. The didn't even have to do this in the first place.



			
				BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> Although possibly NIB has a better grip on putting customers first. Maybe I'll go to them - they've got free banking.


 
Let us know how you get on getting reprinted statements for free from NIB. Will be interesting to know how you get on there.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2005)

> Seems to me there's a few bank emplyees on this thread by their defence of the banks



Just for the record, and given that the above comment was posted immediately following my own post above, I can assure you that I'm not and never have been a bank employee, neither have I worked for any bank in any capacity nor have I ever owned shares in any bank. So there.


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

Is all this really going anywhere anymore? The OP felt that the charge was high. Fair enough, they have now decided to bank elsewhere. Some of us feel that the bank was justified in charging what is set out in the Ts and Cs for a non-standard service, others don't. Some of us are defending standard stated bank pratices, others feel that this is exploitation. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see people changing their positions and it looks to me like anything constructive has already been said.


----------



## 10to1 (12 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> A wise man once said 'Don't shoot the messenger'. The equivalent from the AAM posting guidelines is 'Attack the post, not the poster'.


 
If you refer to posters as "lazy" when in actual fact it was a duplicate statement that was required then I don't see why I can't question your objectivity as Moderator. RD you need to be able to take a little when you are prepared to dish it out regardless of your position. Don't you think?


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2005)

With respect I don't think that you're in much of a position to be affronted at the use of the term 'lazy'. In fact your own approach to this debate could easily be described as 'lazy' in the light of your ludicrous allegations that the contributors who disagreed with your opinion were bank employees, and the fact that you have since proceeded to feign offence at Rainyday's comments rather than keep the discussion on topic as it were. Especially as it is a lot easier to whinge and falsely question others' motives than it is to debate the issue itself and face the reality that everyone does not necessarily agree with your opinion.


----------



## MonsieurBond (12 Dec 2005)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Is all this really going anywhere anymore? The OP felt that the charge was high. Fair enough, they have now decided to bank elsewhere. Some of us feel that the bank was justified in charging what is set out in the Ts and Cs for a non-standard service, others don't. Some of us are defending standard stated bank pratices, others feel that this is exploitation. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see people changing their positions and it looks to me like anything constructive has already been said.



I agree.

Maybe a moderator should lock this topic?

I don't think we will see real competition in the banking market until after we have a few more new entrants fully set up and trading.


----------



## 10to1 (12 Dec 2005)

I totally agree with you MonsieurBond. In the interim Prime Time Investigates tonight should encourage more of us to question our bank more often but as you say the topic should probably be locked.


----------



## kazbah (13 Dec 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Perhaps in the interests of clarity, BrixnMortar could possibly answer this question posed above by Swallows


 
Not possible 48.50 - 3.80 = 44.70
44.70 / 2.50 = 17.88 pages


----------



## BrixnMortar (21 Dec 2005)

*Hooray*

Hooray! BoI has refunded my duplicate statement charge of €48.50, without a big fight. So the campaign may have been worth it.  In this instance it was the best thing to do for them, as I am not prone to inertia and would have moved.  This action has made me reconsider my move.  Thanks to everyone for the interest-I'm sure it made a difference!


----------



## RainyDay (22 Dec 2005)

kazbah said:
			
		

> Not possible 48.50 - 3.80 = 44.70
> 44.70 / 2.50 = 17.88 pages


Are you just going to ignore the questions about how the fee came to €48.50?


----------



## ClubMan (22 Dec 2005)

*Re: Hooray*



			
				BrixnMortar said:
			
		

> Hooray! BoI has refunded my duplicate statement charge of €48.50, without a big fight. So the campaign may have been worth it.  In this instance it was the best thing to do for them, as I am not prone to inertia and would have moved.  This action has made me reconsider my move.  Thanks to everyone for the interest-I'm sure it made a difference!


So should the title of this thread not be changed to reflect the fact that they are not now ripping you off?


----------



## 10to1 (22 Dec 2005)

Just shows you that despite the T's and C's it's always worth asking for a refund when you feel a charge is unfair. Well done! Pity more of us don't question what many contributors feel are unfair charges and banks would more readily take notice.


----------



## CCOVICH (22 Dec 2005)

10to1 said:
			
		

> Just shows you that despite the T's and C's it's always worth asking for a refund when you feel a charge is unfair. Well done! Pity more of us don't question what many contributors feel are unfair charges and banks would more readily take notice.


 
If more of us needed €48.50 of duplicate statements, I guess we would.

Anyway fair play, hope you spend it wisely  .


----------



## DrMoriarty (22 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Are you just going to ignore the questions about how the fee came to €48.50?


Maybe he should first get the statements supplied, foc, and then write a stinker of a letter demanding that they account for the arithmetic..?


----------



## mimi rogers (29 Dec 2005)

It is a lot of money. I can see it being hard for some people to afford.

Mimi.


----------



## Bertibabe (6 Feb 2006)

newgirl said:
			
		

> Permanent TSB don't charge for this, I requested one last week and was told by the girl on their telephone banking service that they don't charge for them.



That wasnt a dupliate statement request that was just an ordinary statement request which indeed they do not charge for.


----------



## Bertibabe (6 Feb 2006)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				Theo said:
			
		

> Clearly, the bank you worked for were very customer oriented - NOT! if you treated your customers that way in other industries, u'd be out of business.



I totally disagree with your statement. The amount of people that request duplicate statements on a daily basis in huge and a lot of manual work is involved in ordering duplicate statements for customers.
What happened to his original statements which were sent out to him (FOR FREE!) in the post???? If the banks didnt charge for duplicate statements, people would probably lose those aswell!!!


----------



## 10to1 (9 Feb 2006)

*Re: Rip Off!*



			
				Bertibabe said:
			
		

> What happened to his original statements which were sent out to him (FOR FREE!) in the post????


 
Hardly for free as you put it. Don't banks still make their money by the difference on their loan and deposit rates. Can't see any bank going to the wall for sending the customer a FREE statement.


----------



## ciara_gmail (23 Feb 2006)

Its a disgrace how much we are charged but it would make you think again about misplacing them! When I got my mortgage last year, they accepted print outs from the bank on unheaded paper and they stamped them as Certified True Copy - Permanent TSB were happy with this.


----------



## Alex (5 Mar 2006)

i save all my statements so i have never needed a duplicate, thank god. i see that first active charge 6.35 for duplicates. it is big difference from 48.50.


----------



## CCOVICH (5 Mar 2006)

Alex said:
			
		

> i see that first active charge 6.35 for duplicates. it is big difference from 48.50.



Is this per page or per period?


----------



## Alex (5 Mar 2006)

it just says "Duplicate Statement 6.35" so i presume they mean per period.


----------



## CCOVICH (5 Mar 2006)

It's a bit vague.  If you were ever in need, I would check before ordering.


----------



## Alex (5 Mar 2006)

i know what you mean. i would check especially when hearing it could cost almost 50 euro.


----------



## woods (5 Mar 2006)

It does not cost anything to have internet access to your personal account and you can print off missing statements.


----------



## CCOVICH (5 Mar 2006)

woods said:
			
		

> It does not cost anything to have internet access to your personal account and you can print off missing statements.



Internet printouts are not always acceptable, that's why a duplicate of the original issued by the bank may be required.


----------



## Alex (7 Mar 2006)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Internet printouts are not always acceptable, that's why a duplicate of the original issued by the bank may be required.


 
i agree totally. lots of places these days want originals and not a copy.


----------



## mayotom (7 Mar 2006)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Internet printouts are not always acceptable, that's why a duplicate of the original issued by the bank may be required.


 
I agree.
Bank of Ireland charged me €23.80 for about 8 pages, they didn't even put it on headed paper. I could have got the same from the internet. Now I'm waiting to see if the oter institution will accept this statement.

€23:80 for a few photocopies. I'am in the wrong job?


----------



## mimi rogers (7 Mar 2006)

Can you get a statement if you just have a bank book on a deposit account? The account is with AIB.

Mimi


----------



## Alex (7 Mar 2006)

mimi rogers said:
			
		

> Can you get a statement if you just have a bank book on a deposit account? The account is with AIB.
> 
> Mimi


 
have you rang your bank and asked them? i'm sure they will be able to tell you in a matter of seconds.


----------

