Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this9:29 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
Not shilling for banks, not shilling for media (maybe in these cases the banks acted even more egregiously than reported, who knows?), just pointing out my work experience (nothing to do with financial institutions) with media, in the cases when I knew the full story from the inside, was that they ALWAYS omitted, slanted, distorted, etc. I became aware that media consumers (as we are reliant 100% on the media's presentations, no other choice) often really don't know what we're talking about.
10:20 am
February 5, 2018
Offline
This is just the same refrain Donald Trump uses fake news
Why talk about any story in the news if the news is fake ?
11:08 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
It is not fake. But, it is not the whole story either.
Sort of like sending a woman a photo, in an unmarked brown envelope, of her husband out at a restaurant having a romantic dinner, holding hands with another woman. 
The "inconvenient" fact that the photo was taken two years before she met her husband and started dating is omitted…
11:42 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Joint said
It seems many people here are shilling for the banks , maybe they work for banks
Maybe some of us have seen some of the "crap" banks have to deal with.
For example, this claim for $700 of currency exchange losses because the bank deposited his incoming US$26,000 wire transfer from a relative into his Canadian Dollar account instead of his US Dollar account:
4:27 am
October 21, 2013
Offline
No news story or any recounting of an event is ever going to be 100% complete. Decisions must be made about what to include and what to exclude, in recognition of what cannot be known and the exigencies of time, budget, space and the (un)willingness of consumers to digest large amounts of information which may be complex.
Journalists have to make some decisions about what stays in and what gets dropped. That's their job.
I have no idea how many of the complaints which are submitted to CBC's GoPublic get rejected because they don't stand up upon investigation, but I'm sure that both they and OBSI have cause to reject a significant number.
It has become too easy to slam journalists. They need our support and encouragement for trying to do a good responsible job. If it were up to some people, all you would hear would be propaganda. I support their effort because, frankly, we need them. Criticize by all means, but do it responsibly and with content and be constructive. If you think something important is missing in a story, complain. Feedback will help them to do a better job.
I once complained to the head of CBC News about what I felt was an undisclosed consistent bias on the part of an interviewer. (It was during an election campaign, interviewer's brother was running in a riding near me and their father had been a cabinet minister for many years - all for same party.) He sent back a detailed reply. We continued to disagree. He volunteered that I could escalate it to CBC ombudsman, but I decided not to do so. I merely wanted to be heard and cause him to reconsider, which I felt I had accomplished.
That interviewer has since left their employ and has taken up a different beat. Too bad in a way because I felt she was actually a very good journalist and I had made that clear. The problem was lack of disclosure.
GoPublic is a programme of Investigative Journalism. For those with a serious interest in CBC's journalistic standards, here are some of their current investigative guidelines: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca.....ournalism/
4:52 am
February 5, 2018
Offline
Norman1 said
Maybe some of us have seen some of the "crap" banks have to deal with.
For example, this claim for $700 of currency exchange losses because the bank deposited his incoming US$26,000 wire transfer from a relative into his Canadian Dollar account instead of his US Dollar account:
That is a part of the banking business . enforcement and interpretation of rules . This is not putting up with it is an attempt to dispense some kind of justice to both parties .
What nice about this that the person do the adjudicating is not the employees of the bank or the banking industry . but is paid by a third party the federal government like a judge . So that chance of justice of some sort is much greater than the kangaroo court the banks offer .
8:19 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Loonie said
No news story or any recounting of an event is ever going to be 100% complete. Decisions must be made about what to include and what to exclude ...
The CBC are incredibly biased in their reporting on a daily and ongoing basis, ...
Here are 2 reports of the same story, easy to spot what CBC is doing here ...
8:25 am
February 5, 2018
Offline
Norman1 said
TD is able to comment probably because the client waived his right to privacy in that matter.The story leaves out the fact that, like bank drafts and money orders, certified cheques are irrevocable. Payments Canada Rule A4, Section 4:
4. Subject to the following exceptions, an Item may be returned by the Drawee pursuant to this Rule if, for any reason payment is refused or cannot be obtained:
(a) No Item shall be returned for the reason that the “words and figures differ” where the difference is twenty dollars ($20) or less;
(b) A Drawee may not return an Item that it certified before the Item was Exchanged for the purpose of Clearing and Settlement, unless the Item is returned for the reason “Forged Endorsement”, “Intended Payee(s) Not Paid”, “Duplicate Payment Item”, “Item Incorrectly amount-encoded”, “Item Cleared in Wrong Currency”, “Image Missing or Not Usable”, “CRD or Image MICR Mismatch” or for the reason that the Item has been Materially Altered subsequent to certification; and
…Car buyer likely refused initial request to give another $21,000 certified cheque after his/her bank asked for indemnity for the lost $21,000 of certified cheques. An indemnity bond would have cost 2% to 3% or $400 to $600.
Also, both screw-ups seem to involve non-routine transactions for a branch. Selling certificated stock through a bank branch. Direct payment of a car loan without depositing first into an account.
The story seems to be odd for the lost $17,000 of stock certificates. Usually stock transactions clear in two business days. Wouldn't the person realize something was wrong after the $17,000 from selling the stocks wasn't credited after a week? It wouldn't take me five months to notice $17,000 didn't show up.
I see these payment Canada rules quoted often . so I contacted them this was the response
On bank drafts a product I often use t to move money between FI me to me bank draft this was their response
The part of the rules you're quoting is from the same rule that we mentioned in our first response - Rule A4. As mentioned, our rules only apply to the way banks move payment items between their customers using our clearing and settlement systems.
It's our understanding that a money order/bank draft is pretty much the equivalent of cash. If it’s lost/stolen, the customer is typically on the hook for it. Many banks offer a replacement or refund service, but they may also require a bond of indemnity from the purchaser in the event the original item shows up. This is governed by bank rules and policies.
We suggest you speak with your financial institution directly for more information about your rights and responsibilities when using bank drafts. You might also want to ask them what other options might be available to meet your payment needs.
Regards,
Payments Canada
So I spoke with the bank they said I could replace it if it was lost or stolen
But what the person form payment Canada has said is that they defer to the FI
These are regulation for FI not customers
7:29 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Loonie said
I don't see that the certified cheque couldn't have been re-issued. The section quoted above refers to "returning" such a cheque, which did not happen. Rather, it has been lost. I haven't had one in quite a while, but have been told by banks in the past to keep the receipt in case the cheque was lost of destroyed, so that it could be replaced.
The Payments Canada rules are from the perspective of the financial institutions involved in the clearing of the items, like cheques, direct deposits, and pre-authorized debits. Hopefully, my added comments will make it clearer what they mean exactly:
(b) A Drawee [financial institution] may not return [or bounce] an Item [back to the submitting institution] that it certified before the Item was Exchanged for the purpose of Clearing and Settlement, unless the Item is returned [bounced back] for the reason “Forged Endorsement”, “Intended Payee(s) Not Paid”, “Duplicate Payment Item”, “Item Incorrectly amount-encoded”, “Item Cleared in Wrong Currency”, “Image Missing or Not Usable”, “CRD or Image MICR Mismatch” or for the reason that the Item has been Materially Altered subsequent to certification;
The implication is that the drawee financial institution that certified the cheque is not allowed to later return or bounce the cheque because of other reasons, like it is too old ("Stale-Dated"), there is a stop order ("Payment Stopped"), or the funds are on hold ("Funds Not Cleared").
Further, if indeed some sort of indemnity were required, which I doubt, it would have had to have come from the bank which lost the cheques. There is no reason the young woman would do that as she has no control over whatever happened to those cheques and can't guarantee that they would not be cashed in favour of someone not entitled to them. Scotia has admitted they don't know where they are, so it's their responsibility - as it was their suggestion to get them re-issued.
That's one of the parts of the story that is doubtful. As a bank, Scotiabank knows bank drafts, money orders, and certified cheques cannot be revoked. The bank that certified the $21,000 of cheques would want some indemnity against those cheques being found, deposited, and submitted for settlement. Scotiabank would have expected a request for a letter of indemnity or an indemnity bond for the car purchaser to take to the other bank.
There is no evidence that she attempted to apply the cheques directly to the car loan. Twice in the article it says she "deposited" the cheques; she also waited the prescribed five days for them to clear.
If she did deposit the cheques into her account, how did the bank figure out that the $21,000 shortfall in that batch of cheques was her two cheques and not some other cheque or cheques that added up to $21,000?
It may or may not be normal for people to attempt to redeem stock certificates by walking into the bank. But the bank did accept them and said they would get them redeemed. The fellow who presented them had very likely never dealt with stock certificates before (he implies they belonged to his mother and may have been acting on power of attorney for her) and was relying on the bank to tell him how to get them cashed. Yes, he dropped the ball by not following through earlier, which might have made it easier to find out more quickly what had become of them.
That part is murky too. Was he trying to sell the $17,000 of shares or redeem them? If the shares were being redeemed by the issuing company, then the procedure is to submit them to the transfer agent with a signed letter of transmittal that is provided. The transfer agent would then send him a cheque.
For sure, the banks were at fault for losing the certified cheques and for losing track of the stock certificates. I suspect there's more to the stories because it doesn't take months to buy an indemnity bond. Once that is purchased and submitted, the bank will be happy to certify another cheque or the transfer agent will be happy issue another stock certificate.
7:58 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Joint said
I see these payment Canada rules quoted often . so I contacted them this was the responseOn bank drafts a product I often use t to move money between FI me to me bank draft this was their response
The part of the rules you're quoting is from the same rule that we mentioned in our first response - Rule A4. As mentioned, our rules only apply to the way banks move payment items between their customers using our clearing and settlement systems.
It's our understanding that a money order/bank draft is pretty much the equivalent of cash. If it’s lost/stolen, the customer is typically on the hook for it. Many banks offer a replacement or refund service, but they may also require a bond of indemnity from the purchaser in the event the original item shows up. This is governed by bank rules and policies.
We suggest you speak with your financial institution directly for more information about your rights and responsibilities when using bank drafts. You might also want to ask them what other options might be available to meet your payment needs.
Regards,
Payments CanadaSo I spoke with the bank they said I could replace it if it was lost or stolen
But what the person form payment Canada has said is that they defer to the FI
These are regulation for FI not customers
Your bank is feeding you the same half truth that was fed someone else. See our previous discussion about what happened when an $846,000 bank draft was lost and how easy it was to replace.
I think you are misinterpreting what Payment Canada told you. Payment Canada does defer to the financial institutions as far as how the financial institutions conduct their business with their customers. If the drawee financial institution decides to not go after their customer when a "lost" $846,000 bank draft shows up and gets deposited, then that's perfectly okay with Payment Canada.
Payment Canada won't allow the institution to claw the $846,000 back from the financial institution that submitted it through the clearing system by bouncing the bank draft back because there is now a stop payment on it.
That has an indirect effect on how the financial institutions deal with us account holders.
8:53 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
Top It Up said
Loonie said
No news story or any recounting of an event is ever going to be 100% complete. Decisions must be made about what to include and what to exclude ...The CBC are incredibly biased in their reporting on a daily and ongoing basis, ...
Here are 2 reports of the same story, easy to spot what CBC is doing here ...
Hardly.
Your criticism makes no sense whatsoever - especially since you have not bothered to explain yourself.
8:59 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Joint said
What nice about this that the person do the adjudicating is not the employees of the bank or the banking industry . but is paid by a third party the federal government like a judge . So that chance of justice of some sort is much greater than the kangaroo court the banks offer .
Well, the CBC article says the OBSI decisions are in favour of the bank and their "kangaroo courts" about 80% of the time. The insinuation is that the OBSI is somehow biased against the consumers.
After reading some of the cases, like the one I just mentioned, I think it is really because the consumer complaints are right only 20% of the time.
As well, the OBSI decisions are non-binding. The financial institution legally does not have to accept them.
9:14 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
i don't want to make this thread unnecessarily long, but I really don't see why you are so suspicious of these customers, Norman. Their stories would not have made prime time without credible evidence, whether people want to believe that or not. It's simply not the way CBC operates. And Hardy would not have been reimbursed by the bank if it were not legitimate. I doubt he knew the difference between "redeem" and "sell" as technical terms. He simply wanted to get the money from them and went to the bank because that was what he knew how to do. I don't find that murky at all.
The woman would have had to have had a deposit slip. Without one, why would anyone believe her? You can't deposit that much money in an ATM, so a bank employee had to have seen those cheques.
Undoubtedly there is more to the story, but the main points seem clear to me.
The policy of the banks in regards to dealing with cheques and stock certs they have lost is the part that I find questionable and uncertain.
6:03 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
Norman1, your 80%/20% is apt. As I said way back my work experience (including with national media institutions) is how I came to my view, and without that work experience I probably would have the same view as those who (with zero proof and either because they lack personal insider work experience or because it's a warm fuzzy concept) seem to think unionized media (e.g. CBC) representations can somehow lead to the 100% truth (let's get rid of the costly justice system, all-party committees, 3rd party investigations, etc - the media can get to the bottom of things!) So be it - without direct experience, they don't know what they don't know.
6:10 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Loonie said
Your criticism makes no sense whatsoever - especially since you have not bothered to explain yourself.
The omissions in the CBC write-up show quite clearly the biases of this $ Billion taxpayer-funded boondoggle.
The naiveté of the Friends of CBC has no bounds.
9:03 am
February 5, 2018
Offline
Norman1 said
Well, the CBC article says the OBSI decisions are in favour of the bank and their "kangaroo courts" about 80% of the time. The insinuation is that the OBSI is somehow biased against the consumers.
After reading some of the cases, like the one I just mentioned, I think it is really because the consumer complaints are right only 20% of the time.
As well, the OBSI decisions are non-binding. The financial institution legally does not have to accept them.
If their is no enforcement it is a pointless process
if the process can not bring agent of the state to their door with guns . to force them to choose between compliance or death or both what is the point of that process
“ power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
a Mao tse-tung quote
10:27 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Loonie said
Your criticism makes no sense whatsoever - especially since you have not bothered to explain yourself.
More of that CBC biased AGENDA for those who just don't get it - funny that CBC should quote from the MB Government Press Release YET leave out the most important part ...
12:19 pm
September 11, 2013
Offline
"Their stories would not have made prime time without credible evidence...." And ""It's simply not the way CBC operates." Without a shred of evidence presented, statement like this are just opinions. Look, people can believe what they want - I happen to believe CBC is the marketing dept of the Trudeau family, that's why he (uncharacteristically, discretely) restored their funding as one of his first acts in office, but I've no proof, so it's just nice, fuzzy thoughts I like to indulge in. At the end of the day I think most adults get that all info we're fed has a bias. Re the question asked by this thread, the big banks have been around for 150 years or so, so it appears they're in sync with Canadians over many generations. I challenge anyone to find even one documented, proven case of a big bank, due to its own fault, losing a client's money and then not covering the loss. That would be of interest.
4:01 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
I think it's very obvious what agenda Top It Up and Bill are promoting. Their responses are more or less what I expected.
7:48 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Loonie said
…, but I really don't see why you are so suspicious of these customers, Norman. Their stories would not have made prime time without credible evidence, whether people want to believe that or not. It's simply not the way CBC operates. And Hardy would not have been reimbursed by the bank if it were not legitimate. I doubt he knew the difference between "redeem" and "sell" as technical terms. He simply wanted to get the money from them and went to the bank because that was what he knew how to do. I don't find that murky at all.The woman would have had to have had a deposit slip. Without one, why would anyone believe her? You can't deposit that much money in an ATM, so a bank employee had to have seen those cheques.
Undoubtedly there is more to the story, but the main points seem clear to me.
The policy of the banks in regards to dealing with cheques and stock certs they have lost is the part that I find questionable and uncertain.
I don't doubt that TD Canada Trust lost Hardy's $17,000 of stock certificates. I also don't doubt that Scotiabank lost Robinson's $21,000 of certified cheques. No doubt it actually did take months for them to obtain restitution from their banks.
CBC wouldn't fabricate all that. It would be too easy for the banks to sue them successfully for libel.
What I have some doubts about is that the banks were solely responsible for the months it took.
I also doubt the banks have no liability for their errors. I think the CBC article writer is confusing no liability for consequential damages with no liability at all.
Please write your comments in the forum.