OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMONWEALTH BANK
I have recently had a disturbing episode with the Benalla Branch of the Commonwealth Bank. I have had an account with the Commonwealth Bank for approximately 50 years. This is not a large account. Nor is it a very active account. Nevertheless I have felt some identification with the bank. I felt that as it was state owned it had a connection with all the people. Theoretically it was owned by the people. Does this give me the right to call myself a customer? The question that I am prompted to ask is - do customers still exist? And the underlying question – if customers still exist - what rights do customers still have? And an even bigger question - do Banks offer anything that used to be considered service? I want to ask if the Commonwealth Bank accepts that the concept of a customer exists in the sense that it existed in 1949. Following the Labour Government attempts to Nationalise the banks in 1949 a Federal Election occurred where one of the main policy issues was over whether people got better service from private banks as opposed to nationalised banks. The services that banks offered was considered an important and vote changing issue. Now all banks are private. And there is no such thing as service. Well any free service. All services have a charge. I presume the reason why all services have a charge is that providing any service to a customer’s costs money. I recently entered the Benalla Branch to ask if I could have a print out of the balance of my account. I knew my account number but I didn’t remember my password so I was unable to access my account to get a printout from my own computer. I was confronted by a young woman immediately I entered the bank. I admit my prejudiced in saying this woman looked modern. I took an instant dislike to this woman and she in turn did not like me. She had approached me within the branch concourse before I could approach a window. She was not behind any window but approached customers as they entered the door. I presume the reason why you send your staff out into the concourse to confront customers as they come in the door is because your policy is to appear to be modern. I was taken aback but I asked my question. She explained that she could do what I asked but it would cost me $2.50. When I asked why there was a charge she said she could arrange for me to change my password and this would not cost me anything. I objected to being charged for what I considered should be a simple service that should be offered by the Bank. I asked her to explain to me just what was the difference in time and expertise between charging for evidence of a bank balance and the time taken showing me how to get a new password. I would think that it would take longer to arrange a new password. But why should there be a charge for either service? She took great umbridge at my questions and said she did not like my attitude. As for her not liking my attitude I ask what do you expect? If you ask your staff to follow inconsistent and extremely harsh rules why should your staff complain if longstanding customers complain loudly and ask just why these rules exist? Rules that could not be considered by any normal person to be moral. Why is it considered unacceptable if customers complain loudly about rules that should not exist? Rules that would have been thought unbelievable 40 years ago. Some one individual within your bank has made the decision that you will charge a fee for any service requested from your customers. Who made this decision? I would like to know this person’s name. Decisions do not get made inside a vacuum. Some individual made this decision. Maybe a committee did but I don’t think so. But it was made and it is incorrect to claim that no one person made this decision. The Commonwealth Bank used to class itself as the peoples bank. When the Commonwealth Bank was owned by the Government it had to act morally. If it did anything that was considered immoral or was not in the interests of its customers eventually it would percolate up to the relevant government minister and he would give instructions to change the banks policy. Now that the Commonwealth Bank is privately owned it can act in anyway it wants. Immorally or not. I don’t have to refer you to recent Commonwealth Bank actions that have not been moral. The intent is the same in this instance. Why is this? Does that bank believe it has to act immorally in order to make a profit? The bank will make a profit anyway. Why then does it have to act immorally? You will claim that what happened 40 years ago is irrelevant. I am here to tell you that 40 years ago all Banks endeavored to act with honour. I am unable to understand why modern Banks feel obliged to give the firm impression that they have to act with dishonour.
1 Comment
Bev
6/9/2015 17:52:29
It is so different these days! It was even more different when I travelled north recently and in some areas the Commonwealth Bank only had a concourse, with EFTPOS machines, some computers/tablets for online banking, a few chairs, and a room out of which a staff member would emerge to see if they could help. In more traditional settings, it was clear that people were being encouraged to use the computers/tablets rather than the tellers. I'm glad that we still have some traditional features, such as tellers behind counters and an information counter... or perhaps the concourse idea is gaining ground in Benalla since my last visit!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Topics
All
Archives
February 2024
|