Let us make life simpler by questioning unnecessary and
redundant processes- Series 1
One day, two strange encounters with two Banks across two continents:
While banking has become quite easy in the internet era, with net banking
substantially improving the ease of doing business, I had two frustrating yet
interesting encounters with two banks on the same day across two continents.
The first one is a bank in Mauritius where I had an account quite some time
back and closed for over three to four years back, I had received an
unsolicited credit card offer about a year back which I never bothered to
activate despite repeated follow up from their so-called marketing (or
pestering) team. I was surprised to receive a letter dated early February in my
mail box(in mid-March) informing that I had overdue in my so called not yet
activated credit card and if it is not cleared by the end of the
month(presumably February) the matter will be reported to the country’s Credit
Information Bureau, which obviously will impact my ability to avail additional
credit(they presumed that I used the not activated credit card to avail credit
facilities of low four figure amount, which they had shown as default. A few
frantic calls and mail finally bring a response that it was an administrative error
(how convenient). I am wondering how a bank can attribute defaults to a
non-activated credit card.
Another interesting encounter with a bank where I have recently opened an
account. From the day I opened the account, the Relationship Manager pestered
me to place some fixed deposit in view of the attractive interest rate being
offered by the bank. However, the real fun started when I tried to open a FD
through internet banking. I could not proceed with creating the FD as the bank
was refusing to take the nominee (same as in my savings account) when I was
providing the correct address, as the bank’s internet banking did not have a
provision for international address in their system. While the business side
was apologetic about the faux pass, the IT team was quite indifferent to their
oversight. The solution they offered was to provide a local address to affect
the transaction. My question is as to why the Regulator does not standardize
the KYC rules for the depositors including for the nominees. Why is the Adhaar
not taken as an identification tool?
Let us make life simpler by questioning unnecessary and
redundant processes- Series 2
I had an interesting experience recently. Had not received the
superannuation payments from LIC of India. On enquiring why there has been no
payment, I got a mail that I have to submit an Existence Certificate which has
to be certified by a gazette officer or a bank manager. Firstly, the
institution did not initiate the action at its own end. Secondly, it is a
superannuation account where the deposit is already there, and you are only
making an annuity payment. In case of a demise, the nominee would have approached
the institution anyway. Thirdly, in the current tech enabled world, a video
call with your identification documents could have resolved the existence
confirmation instead of resorting to archaic processes. I know one insurance
company has already initiated the same. Can the insurance regulator and the
government initiate a process change?
Let us make life simpler by questioning unnecessary and
redundant processes-Series 3
A major Indian private sector Bank insists on a branch visit to customer to
open a DMat account even when the same customer may have joint D mat accounts
with his name as a primary customer, the second person(wife) also has DMat
account with the same bank. Both the souses have also accounts the securities
trading arm of the bank also. Ideally one should be allowed to open the DMat
account electronically in such a case when all the KYCs are available with the
bank. While it is impractical for an NRI customer, it is equally redundant
exercise for a resident customer. Do not understand the logic of the bank or
have I missed something major because of which the bank is insisting on a
branch visit?
Let us make life simpler by questioning unnecessary and
redundant processes- Series 4
I received the following message from one of my banks, a reputed Indian
private sector bank, a few months back.
“We refer to the Tax Identification Number (TIN) you had submitted to the Bank
for FATCA/CRS Declaration for your Country of Residence. Regulatory authorities
have informed that the TIN submitted in your account is incorrect. Under the
applicable law, penal consequences can be levied on the Bank for cases were inaccurate,
incomplete or false disclosure of statement of financial transactions or
reportable accounts by you. The Bank shall be entitled to take any necessary
action and recover from you such an amount levied due to such inaccuracy,
incompleteness or false disclosure. “. For any compliant customer, it is quite
a strongly worded warning by the bank. On an immediate reply citing my TIN to
the sender with a copy to my Relationship Manager, I received no response from
the sender but thankfully the Relationship Manager mentioned that ReKYC was
last updated in 2022, and it is required every 10 years. The explanation still
did not address the issue and on telephonic enquiry with the RM, I was asked to
ignore the message as it was a system generated message. How can a system
generate such wrong letters unless it is programmed incorrectly? My question is
that why should banks be harassing compliant customers this way and get away
with frivolous excuses. It is time the regulator looks into these areas of
customer harassment. Apart from a regulatory fine, compensation to customers
will ensure better behavior by banks.
Let us make life simpler by questioning unnecessary and
redundant processes- Series 5
Recently I initiated the process of creating an FCNR deposit with a reputed
Indian private sector bank, where I already have a similar deposit and have
been a customer for over 20 years. Funds were transferred to the bank. However,
instead of allowing the FCNR deposit creation through internet banking, the
bank required physical forms to be signed, scanned, and sent. Following this,
they insisted on receiving the physical copies as well, which was arranged for
collection by the bank's courier.
This raises a question: why not enable the entire process through internet
banking, complemented by a security check via video call if necessary?
But the challenges did not end there. After submitting the application, I was
informed by my Relationship Manager that a compliance call would follow. When
the call came from the compliance desk, on my registered phone number, it was
also attended by a supervisor. The first security question they asked was about
my registered phone number—a question I found redundant since they had called
me on that very number.
In addition to standard security questions, they asked for details about the
quantum of the FCNR deposit, its duration, and the applicable interest rate. I
found these questions unnecessary and irrelevant, especially since this
information was already available with the bank and does not appear to be
appropriate security questions.
It is high time the regulator strived to streamline banking processes to
enhance efficiency and accessibility while maintaining robust security
standards.
