Card laxity: If customers are penalised, why not banks?
ACCORDING to yesterday's report, 'Credit card stolen? Mind the pitfalls', credit card consumers are penalised for laxity, but by implication, banks are not. While my experience is with stolen ATM cards, it is relevant to the question of bank laxity which leaves the customer unprotected. Why should this be so?
Related link:
My experience also showed the different responses by two banks: POSB at Keypoint and United Overseas Bank (UOB) at Textile Centre.
In May, I lost my wallet containing my identity card, credit and ATM cards, but I did not realise I had lost it until a POSB officer from the branch at Keypoint called to verify my account. POSB was alerted when the thief impersonated me and tried to replace the ATM cards.
As I also lost my UOB ATM card, I called its hotline. Imagine my shock when I was told that the bank had issued the impersonator a new card, which was to be activated soon.
I asked the UOB staff how the bank could have issued a new ATM card to a person who had used my stolen IC and forged my signature.
I was told that the branch manager approved the replacement and that the bank did not have my recent contact telephone number to verify. I had not changed my telephone number for years.
The irony was that when I decided to close my bank account, the same teller who had issued the card to the impersonator requested that I sign at least half a dozen times for verification in order to close the account.
Naturally, the hypothetical 'what ifs' flooded my mind when I recall the procedures I went through at UOB.
What if I had deposited my life savings and the thief had successfully activated my account with the replacement card provided by the bank?
Dinah Omar (Ms)
