Consumers battle banks over card errors

Press, 28 July 1987, Page 9

Consumers battle banks over card errors

Some electronic funds transfer and credit card holders in Canterbury have discovered that the "plastic’’ is not without its problems. The complaints officer at the Consumers’ Institute laboratory in Christchurch, Mr Maurice Smith, has received at least six written complaints and a number of calls from angry cardusers at the brunt of their bank’s errors. “The advancement of technology in respect of electronic funds transfer cards and normal credit cards seems to me to have outstripped the human ability to correct errors brought about by the use of such cards,” said Mr Smith. Most of the complainants have got in touch with the institute only after several visits to the issuing bank failed to resolve the problem.

One Christchurch woman who paid her Clubcard account and was then double-charged, wrote to the bank three times. In reply to her

queries, the bank sent two notes saying little more than that the matter was “under Investigation,” but in the meantime they closed her account and she was regarded as a bad debtor. Mr Smith said that another complainant received her credit card account on December 22, with payment due on December 20.

She paid the account immediately and explained the error to the bank, but was still charged interest. Even after both she and Mr Smith approached the bank several times, it took six months to have it corrected.

An Ashburton youth who opened a Postbank account was told on receiving his Safecard and P.I.N. number that he could draw on the account only if he was in credit or if he had a pre-arranged overdraft.

He used the card only once, on May 29, to withdraw $2O, but was told by the Post Office in June that he had been put into

overdraft by more than $5OO.

“We don’t know if the card was lost or stolen, but the point is that the P.I.N. was still in his possession,” Mr Smith said.

The matter has now been referred to the Consumers’ Institute’s head office in Wellington, but because he was “hassled” by the Post Office, the youth has already paid the $540 out of his oWn pocket. Perhaps the most bemused customer was the man who applied for a credit card personalised in his own name, and later found it to have been personalised in the name of his daughter, aged four, instead.

Mr Smith said that one thing card-users should beware of was that even if they paid their account on the due date it was possible it would not arrive at the bank’s head office until after that date, and interest would still be charged.

“The public do not seem to know what addi-

tional charges are being made on the use of such cards.”

Some banks charge a service fee of $2.95 for each statement issued where money is owed, plus an interest charge for the use of their credit facilities.

A code of practices governing the use of electronic funds transfer cards was published by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in May, but Mr Smith said many of the signatories were representatives of the banks with which people were having problems. “l am delighted that a code of practice has been written, as long as when a problem is brought to their knowledge, they fix it promptly.”

Mr Smith received his own credit card some time ago, but it was placed in a drawer and left unused. About six months later, he was told by the bank that because of his extremely good payment history, his credit limit had been doubled.