Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this3:12 pm
October 21, 2013
Online
I think that "higher body" is you.
You can take your business elsewhere.
7:20 am
September 22, 2017
Offline
No. I pay taxes, which pays the FCAC to ensure Canadians are treated fairly
9:09 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
FCAC is there to ensure that banking customers are treated legally. Whether or not that ends up being "fair" is a separate question that won't be addressed by FCAC.
CBC recently reported on an FCAC investigation into the sometimes-aggressive sales tactics from banks. In Go Public: CIBC financial adviser 'stunned' that federal investigation found bank customers not widely upsold, the FCAC says that if it isn't illegal, there is anything they can do:
"The bank environment is a sales environment," says [FCAC deputy commissioner Brigitte] Goulard. "If you're not a salesperson, perhaps working in a bank is not for you … People [bank customers] need to know that the bank is not there to look after their interest."
Goulard says the FCAC can't address many of the concerns the public and bank employees have about selling products.
"Offering higher credit limits to Canadians or extending credit lines or offering more credit cards isn't, per se, illegal," says Goulard. "There are some questions about whether Canadians should have a third or fifth credit card. But that behaviour is not illegal."
I think it is well within Tangerine Bank's rights to offer different rates to different customers. It is discrimination. But, it isn't illegal discrimination.
11:35 am
February 27, 2018
Offline
The legality of any form of discrimination has become a grey area and with tangerine not willing to disclose the criteria of who gets, and who doesn't, their questionable banking practices have become open to criticism. Is it man vs woman? Black vs white? Rich vs poor? Blue eyes vs brown?
Attracting "New clients" vs "old clients" was an acceptable excuse to me but that's NOT tangerine's reason for their selective process. And when you call them, asking for the best rate available, the sales rep will flat out deny that 2.75% is even being offered. How wrong is that?
If the matter were up to negotiating the best deal, the best rate, that's business, buyer beware, car dealers do it all the time BUT when it's the actual institution themselves starting a selective process, that's when it becomes unfair, illegal.
4:56 pm
October 21, 2013
Online
tcharger67 said
No. I pay taxes, which pays the FCAC to ensure Canadians are treated fairly
In that case, your beef is with FCAC or your MP. I don't think the ombudsperson can help you.
6:22 pm
September 22, 2017
Offline
Loonie common. Any federal body expects grievances to be brought to the "in charge" complaint of the agency in question before federal body will intervene. The same goes for tenancy, working relationships employee employer, safety, training, and service provider, the list goes on and on and on. I would expect that to be a clear to any Canadian
7:01 pm
October 21, 2013
Online
Tangerine is not going to change its entire marketing system because some people complain about it.
I am hardly an advocate for the banks; but no law has been broken that anyone has cited thus far.
Thus, your beef is with FCAC or your MP.
But, even if you succeeded, all that it would accomplish would be a lower interest rate for everyone who is now enjoying a premium rate and no possibility of getting any more premium rates. Is that what you want?
7:05 pm
September 11, 2013
Offline
"....that's when it becomes unfair, illegal." As Norman1 has pointed out, fair and legal are quite different concepts, don't muddy the water. It may be unfair, that does not by any means make it illegal.
And with regard to "discrimination", to me that's an ever-evolving concept. For example, we have a prime minister (to give just one illustration) who, with the support of most modern-thinking equity-minded Canadians, hands out some jobs based on gender (assuming a minimum level of competence has been met), thereby signalling powerfully to other organizations to do the same. So I'd suggest that what some used to call discrimination is now just seen in Canada by many as a positive way of redressing imbalances. I agree Tangerine may not be targeting old vs new clients as much as clients they want to retain vs clients they don't mind losing, and that's pretty much what any business does and is free to do (within the laws), i.e. cater only to those whose business they want. But I do think the strongest argument those have who consider Tangerine's practises as discriminatory is to compare it to a restaurant or any other business having different posted prices for different people, that might provide some traction in their complaints.
Please write your comments in the forum.