Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this5:04 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Yes, as long as I can get Coast to amend the T5. I think I may have an easier time being credited back for the interest, in value for my relationship with the credit union and that I desire to help them improve their systems and policies moving forward. I'll keep you guys updated! 
Cheers,
Doug
5:32 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
If money is what you really want out of them, then that's another matter. I thought you were just pursuing the principle. However, could be used as a bargaining chip for a "goodwill" gesture.. If so, make it a nice round number, say $100?, so that it doesn't look like you're looking for reimbursement per se (but, of course, you'd be willing to accept 79 if offered, right?). I am doubtful about this, but you're a persistent guy.
Too bad you don't seem to have any documentation to show you were not to get any interest.
5:53 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Well, I do have e-mails showing me saying for them to go ahead and either (a) redeem the GIC at a lower rate of interest to be decided on by them or (b) to forfeit any accrued interest. No e-mail response; they just went ahead and did it. So, by default, they opted for my (b) suggestion.
I do still have a problem with how they handle early redemptions of GICs from a tax reporting perspective, but I thought that if it's too much trouble for them to amend my T5, I'd accept a refund of the interest that was to be forfeited. The thinking in this approach is that when I re-approach the senior executive team of the credit union, I can state, upfront, how satisfied I was with both the branch and the Contact Centre, but that I wanted to help them to amend their policies and upgrade their banking system with respect to the way early redemptions of GICs are handled.
Cheers,
Doug
10:51 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
I hear what you're saying but would be reluctant to assume they care or want to improve their system on this score. They may just perceive the whole thing as a nuisance.
They probably figure they did you a favour by redeeming it at all.
I sometimes wonder if one-way email is a trick with some companies. I send; they phone. If I wanted a phone conversation, which sometimes I do, then wouldn't I have phoned?
They did, however, owe you a written response to confirm. I would use that as part of my argument, with the default.
8:26 am
October 29, 2017
Offline
Was looking at the wording of your request to CC. You asked to forfeit the interest and forfeiting is a penalty, which is exactly what happened. If you wanted no interest paid, you needed to ask for a zero interest rate. I understand that other FIs may have done it differently, but I don’t see anything wrong with what was done from your worded request.
They aren’t your friend and aren’t going to maximize the transaction to your benefit, they carried out your instructions and that’s quite reasonable of them.
9:22 am
December 12, 2009
Offline
Vatox said
Was looking at the wording of your request to CC. You asked to forfeit the interest and forfeiting is a penalty, which is exactly what happened. If you wanted no interest paid, you needed to ask for a zero interest rate. I understand that other FIs may have done it differently, but I don’t see anything wrong with what was done from your worded request.They aren’t your friend and aren’t going to maximize the transaction to your benefit, they carried out your instructions and that’s quite reasonable of them.
With the utmost respect, Vatox, I think you're parsing my wording too finely. This isn't a court proceeding - I think it's pretty clear what my intent was and forfeiting interest, while a financial penalty to me, is not the same as making that interest taxable to me. Never has been; nor should it. I am quite confident I know what's happened - some Senior Manager of Financial Reporting (or similar) in their Operations and/or Finance departments as interpreted some tax rules quite differently than what financial institutions are doing. The lower level, customer-facing staff agree me in my logic, but they're powerless and seem to have no desire to recommend changes. I get it - they're just there to collect a paycheque. When I worked for HSBC, though, if a customer presented to me a problem and, in my investigation and analysis of the problem, determined there was a problem with our processes and policies, I took the extra step of raising these issues with the appropriate team members and trying to effect a change. Sometimes I was successful; other times, it seemed to fall on deaf ears, but the important thing is...I actually took that step. It's kind of sad that more bank and credit union staff weren't like me. 
To Loonie's point, they may see it as a nuisance, and yes I do appreciate them redeeming the GIC, but never did I expect that they would report interest (to/for me) that they were to keep for the privilege of letting me redeem the interest. And, I even locked in that GIC for an additional 21 months beyond its existing term.
Cheers,
Doug
8:55 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
Vatox, I think you have a high estimation of the linguistic sensibilities of CC employees!
Without consulting a dictionary (and I'm sure they didn't), I would have understood Doug as intending to forego the interest, not to receive it for a nanosecond.
CC may not be Doug's "friend", but he is supposedly an "owner" in the oft-repeated jargon of CUs, so they ought to listen and have a civil and rational dialogue.
Seems to me it's obvious that Doug never got the money and didn't expect to get the money.
Assuming the "penalty" is not on their fees list (I haven't checked), it was an arbitrary choice to assign interest and a corresponding fee. Doug was not advised of this and had no reason to expect it.
11:10 pm
October 29, 2017
Offline
Okay.
8:36 am
December 12, 2009
Offline
Loonie said
Vatox, I think you have a high estimation of the linguistic sensibilities of CC employees!
Without consulting a dictionary (and I'm sure they didn't), I would have understood Doug as intending to forego the interest, not to receive it for a nanosecond.CC may not be Doug's "friend", but he is supposedly an "owner" in the oft-repeated jargon of CUs, so they ought to listen and have a civil and rational dialogue.
Seems to me it's obvious that Doug never got the money and didn't expect to get the money.
Assuming the "penalty" is not on their fees list (I haven't checked), it was an arbitrary choice to assign interest and a corresponding fee. Doug was not advised of this and had no reason to expect it.
Thank you, Loonie! Glad to hear my rationale wasn't confusing. You explained the problem very well and very concisely.
I should emphasize the owner aspect in my future e-mail correspondence summarizing either of the two options that would be acceptable to me. I've signed my Facebook comments on their page as "Member-Owner," so perhaps I should sign my e-mail in that way as well? 
I had a quick look at their service fees to double-check, and indeed, there was no "GIC/term deposit early redemption service fee" or "GIC early redemption/term deposit penalty fee".
So, bottom line, if they don't want to amend their process to simply withhold GIC/term deposit interest (and thus not report), since Norman has said he believes that the other banks that handle redemptions that way, they should, at a minimum, that allows them to debit one's account for the amount of interest paid to an account, no?
Cheers,
Doug
5:20 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
i don't think I can add any more except to point out that CUs, in their "you're an owner" advertising, usually also say that what makes them different is that they do what's best for you or words to that effect. Perhaps you can find something like that to quote. It's not best for you to have more taxable income, clearly.
Although I approve in principle, I also think there's a lot of BS in CU advertising! I like the idea of holding them to it.
6:24 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Loonie said
i don't think I can add any more except to point out that CUs, in their "you're an owner" advertising, usually also say that what makes them different is that they do what's best for you or words to that effect. Perhaps you can find something like that to quote. It's not best for you to have more taxable income, clearly.Although I approve in principle, I also think there's a lot of BS in CU advertising! I like the idea of holding them to it.
LOL yeah, do you mean if we're owners, we should be able to have more say in things (i.e., policies), or how do you mean?
Cheers,
Doug
8:29 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
Well, I certainly think it gives you the right to call them out when their policies are not in the best interests of their members - as this one clearly isn't - and to expect accountability.
It's a fine line between that and micromanagement, which isn't a good idea. They obviously can't be at the beck and call of every disgruntled member.
I think you'd better get on it soon though. Time's a-wasting. They will be more receptive sooner than later, and you don't ant to make it look like an afterthought.
Please write your comments in the forum.