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....
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.
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?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.
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?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).
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.
BrixnMortar said:so I have required a number of sets of statements over the past year, that in some cases are not returned.
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?
BrixnMortar said:Although possibly NIB has a better grip on putting customers first. Maybe I'll go to them - they've got free banking.
Seems to me there's a few bank emplyees on this thread by their defence of the banks
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'.
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.
ubiquitous said:Perhaps in the interests of clarity, BrixnMortar could possibly answer this question posed above by Swallows
Are you just going to ignore the questions about how the fee came to €48.50?kazbah said:Not possible 48.50 - 3.80 = 44.70
44.70 / 2.50 = 17.88 pages
So should the title of this thread not be changed to reflect the fact that they are not now ripping you off?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!
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.
Maybe he should first get the statements supplied, foc, and then write a stinker of a letter demanding that they account for the arithmetic..?RainyDay said:Are you just going to ignore the questions about how the fee came to €48.50?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?