FSA may name & shame

[EXC]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4016078.ece

[enaid]

Re: FSA may name & shame

Banks that receive the most customer complaints could be named and shamed under proposals outlined yesterday by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

In its first discussion paper on increased transparency in its own dealings with the market, the City watchdog said that it could potentially list the worst offenders in a league table of poor customer care. It would also take into account how long the banks and financial services companies took to resolve grievances and what sort of recompense was handed out.

About 18,500 companies in the second half of last year provided details of customer complaints to the regulator. But the FSA estimates that if it published complaints data, about 400 companies would account for roughly 99 per cent of all reported complaints.

The FSA is required by law to keep some information private but said it was also allowed to publish more details in other areas. The proposals also include naming more companies that the FSA has investigated as well as highlighting those that have done well.

“We believe that transparency is an important regulatory tool,” said Hector Sants, FSA chief executive. The FSA is inviting feedback on its proposals by August 29.

Separately, banks have been accused of denying millions of savers the chance to benefit from a rapid cash transfer service that was launched yesterday. Electronic payments between deposit accounts can now be dealt with within hours, rather than four days, but consumer groups have said that the banks are delaying the process because they can make up to £30 million a year by sitting on the cash.

Eddy Weatherill, of the Independent Banking Advisory Service, a consumer organisation, said: “By dragging their feet the banks can continue to profit. The launch is nothing but a publicity exercise.”

In theory, savers should be able to make payments of up to £10,000 by phone or online with funds leaving their account and arriving on the same day. From June 6 the service will be extended to standing orders, with a limit of £100,000.

However, only a fraction of payments will be quicker from day one. Initially, only eight out of 70 retail banks will allow customers to send payments using the service. Of the biggest high street banks, only Royal Bank of Scotland customers will be able to transfer £10,000 using the system immediatel

[TANZARELLI]

Re: FSA may name & shame

I think they should do this even if some complaints are not upheld, it would give anyone shopping around a rough idea of who to go to and who to avoid.

[argentarius]

Re: FSA may name & shame

I don't agree. IMHO it is a stupid idea.

Obviously most of the organisations at the top of the list of number of complaints will be the biggest financial institutions.

A list in order of number of complaints is hence meaningless. What good to anyone is a list showing Barclays, LTSB, HSBC, HBOS, etc. at the top? Does it really aid a consumer's choice? I really don't think so.

What is required (but probably too hard to provide) is a ranking by percentage of an institution's total customers who make a complaint which is upheld.


Eddy Weatherill is a self-serving self-publicist and his comments are almost invariably wrong or unfair. Without going into lots of detail, the gradual implementation of the Faster Payments system is in order to allow the system to be stress tested incrementally. The last thing anyone wanted, or needed, was for the system to fall over on the first day because it is overwhelmed by the volume of transactions or because a fault is identified.

Accusing the banks of delaying implementation to save a few £m is nonsense.

And electronic payments do not take "four days" as is quoted. They arrive two working days after they are sent, for all except a small minority of banks.

[EXC]

Re: FSA may name & shame

I don't agree. IMHO it is a stupid idea.

Obviously most of the organisations at the top of the list of number of complaints will be the biggest financial institutions.

A list in order of number of complaints is hence meaningless. What good to anyone is a list showing Barclays, LTSB, HSBC, HBOS, etc. at the top? Does it really aid a consumer's choice? I really don't think so.

It's primary purpose is not to aid customer choice but to discourage dodgey practices, hence it's description as a ''regulatory tool'' by Hector Sants. A further clue can be found in the thread's title and within the artcle: 'name and shame' and not 'name and gain'.

What is required (but probably too hard to provide) is a ranking by percentage of an institution's total customers who make a complaint which is upheld.


Eddy Weatherill is a self-serving self-publicist and his comments are almost invariably wrong or unfair. Without going into lots of detail, the gradual implementation of the Faster Payments system is in order to allow the system to be stress tested incrementally. The last thing anyone wanted, or needed, was for the system to fall over on the first day because it is overwhelmed by the volume of transactions or because a fault is identified.

Accusing the banks of delaying implementation to save a few £m is nonsense.

So what have they been up to for, say, the last 10 years? Clearly not implementing same day payment systems.

And electronic payments do not take "four days" as is quoted. They arrive two working days after they are sent, for all except a small minority of banks.

I'm not sure if Nat West qualify as a minority but it can take up to 7 working days - I do it all the time.

*****

[argentarius]

Re: FSA may name & shame

My response was to TANZ's comment, suggesting that it would be a useful guide to those shopping around.

Why on earth should the banks have been implementing same-day payment systems for the past, say, 10 years? I don't believe that there is a genuine need for same-day payment systems for the bulk of payments; I would rather (as a bank customer) get a higher rate on my current account (for example) than have same-day payment. I'd rather (as a bank shareholder) the banks didn't waste huge amounts of money on something which is of little benefit to most people and which will lead them to lose some money that they currently earn in "float" interest.

I don't understand why you have 7 day payment delay with NatWest; if I had that sort of delay, I would complain about it. There is no reason for payments to arrive more than two working days after they start the BACS process and if they do, there's a system fault somewhere along the line - or a systemic delay. I said "a majority" because A&L (for example, with whom I bank) do not start the standard BACS 2 working day process until the day after you instruct a payment, so for them the process takes 3 working days. But that's exact - not slightly more or less - as long as the transaction is made during the working day on the first day in the process - and it's what they say is the speed of service they provide. 7 working days is appalling.

Or perhaps you don't care about the 7 working days delay enough to complain? In which case, Faster Payments will be of little benefit to you either.

[EXC]

Re: FSA may name & shame

No offence Argy but I'm really not interested in debating this.

You have a remarkably high 'I' count in your posts that makes debate rather tiresome.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: FSA may name & shame

My response was to TANZ's comment, suggesting that it would be a useful guide to those shopping around.

Not really a correct quote argentarius I actually said the following

I think they should do this even if some complaints are not upheld, it would give anyone shopping around a rough idea of who to go to and who to avoid.

I was not saying it was something to be followed as a rule as there is more to making a decision like which bank to use/avoid or which product to choose/reject than any list could provide.

If banks acted more responsibly then even the big boys could reduce complaints.

[LuggerBugs]

Re: FSA may name & shame

Oh, aye. A higher rate of interest on my current account would be good right enough. Because I ALWAYS have loads of cash sitting around in that. It isn't really all gone by the end of the month, because I have a really high income. So I'm making a fortune in interest on my curent account.

Can't find the sarcasm smiley.

Really, what Arge says is true... the banks WOULD feature highly on a table of shame, compared with other financial companies. HOWEVER, when shopping around for a bank, I really couldn't care less how they shape up alongside an insurance company, for example. I'd base my decision on how they fare in the same market. Current accounts as a prime example.

As for virtually instant transactions, it would be a real boon when making credit card payments. At least you know then it'll be in on time. I'm fed up of paying my balance off when it's somewhat large because of work expenses only to find it's taken over a week to process because of "Money laundering regulations" and they hit me with a late payment fee for the privilige. Money laundering my @rse!!! It's just to get a few days extra interest and an unlawful penalty out of me, as far as I'm concerned.

[argentarius]

Re: FSA may name & shame

If you settle your credit card payments by direct debit, then (a) there isn't any "float" interest period and (b) you won't ever pay late. As applies to paying any other bill by DD.

Banks shouldn't ever tell you that they are delaying processing a transaction due to money laundering regulations. It's an offence to "tip off" customers that they are suspected of money laundering.

My point wasn't that it's not worthwhile to see the frequency of complaints. It's just that frequency of complaints is not best expressed by number of complaints made, but by proportion of successful complaints made compared to the size of the customer base. That's all!

[LuggerBugs]

Re: FSA may name & shame

AYe, I can do that. Pay by D/D. Right. That would work IF I got my expenses paid at the same time each month. Unfortunately, I have to wait until they come in before I can pay out. So that's THAT idea fecked then.

I'll take up your point about money laundering with my CC company. Unfortunately, the only proof I have is verbal along the lines of..

"Why hasn't my payment cleared yet? I paid it 8 days ago."
"Money laundering sir. It was a rather large amount, so we are obliged to carry out extra checks."
"Feck off, get it cleared now, or I'll ditch your card and have a closer look at your so-called charges."

Result being, 2 hours later, money in account. Surprise.

[argentarius]

Re: FSA may name & shame

Hm, it's a pain if your employer doesn't pay them reliably on a certain date. Can you get a company credit card, giving them the problem rather than you?

How are you paying the money? You say that it's the credit card company that you are having the discussions with, but if you are paying by BACS there's no checking for them to do - the money simply arrives from another bank and they don't need to worry about it for money laundering purposes. If you're paying by cheque, there's equally no money laundering issue.

The only possible money laundering issue would be if you were paying large amounts of cash over a branch counter to settle your credit card bill. And even then, the money laundering responsibility would be on the bank accepting the cash, not the credit card operator.

I've paid very many thousands of pounds on credit card bills by BACS and never suffered any sort of payment delay. It is unfortunate that your card operator seem to be numpties.

[LuggerBugs]

Re: FSA may name & shame

All expenses get paid into my bank account, which I then have to use to pay my cards with. We don't have a company card scheme any longer. So it's just a case of dropping my expenses claim in whenever I get home from a job, and it gets paid two weeks following the next friday. Not always ideal as I can often be away for weeks, so it's pushing the interest free period by the time I get my expenses in, never mind anything else. If I'm overseas, I just have to get the missus to pay the minimum until I manage to get home.

Anyhow, this is going off on a tangent and away from the original point of the thread. Sorry Exec.