The court decision is, with respect, correct in law, but wouldn't you have thought that the bank would have cut this poor victim some slack.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesR:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/july/C40491.htm

The court decision is, with respect, correct in law, but wouldn't you have thought that the bank would have cut this poor victim some slack.

---

Knowing banks, I wouldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If there's anyone to blame, it's the ex spouse. She should go after him, not the bank.

---

quote:

---

it seems to me that the bank is both more
"blameworthy" and better able to absorb the loss (think tax writeoff) than is the wife.

---

If they obeyed the terms that she signed, how can they be "blameworthy" at all? Don't they have to actually renege on their agreement before they're to blame?

quote:

---

Why would, or should, the bank "cut her some slack"? As the link states, she stated that she understood the agreement, and there's no evidence that the bank acted outside of that agreement in any way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I know that it's not really a legal imperative, but there once was a concept known as customer service. Banks don't really practice this concept anymore, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
No. It means making the odd courtesy call when major changes are made to a line of credit. "We just called to see how that extra limit on your line of credit is working out. Oh, you didn't know about the increase? Let me put our loan manager on the line..."

---

http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10678.html

I acknowleged right off the top of this thread that the bank was within its legal rights to insist on this outcome. (though now and then we get a brilliant jurist that can upset the moneychanger's tables)

My point is that what kind of corporate citizenship is it' whay kind of image making/marketing is it, to pursue a cheated, defrauded spouse through to the Court of Appeal for 15 or 20 grand; a write-off that would cost the bank nothing.

I hope that fellow Babblers advertise this action by Scotiabank far and wide. I hope that they enjoy the few thousand dollars that they may recover by way of judgment and costs. I hope that many people who receive their promotional flyers in the mail will write across them "I remember how you treated Mrs. Baker", and either mail them back or drop them in a night deposit box.

Believe me; only a few hundred of those would send a very big message.

In telephone banking, inbound call centre reps are given a very limited amount of time to handle calls and very strict and difficult sales targets. If you call in call in with a complex problem that will require lot of work and time, the representative will often A) try to brush it off, B) unnecessarily refer you to your local branch (meaning take time off work to see a teller), or C) deal with it, but with as little effort as possible (eg. compensating you a few dollars, but not taking measures (if possible) that could stop the same thing from happening again. After compensating you, the representative will, having reviewed your file, do a sales pitch for whatever product they think might sell.

Over the time I was employed, the targets for call time and sales became harder and harder. The banks won't admit it, but that is squeezing out good customer service. Not only are reps not taking the time to help customers, but some are doing some highly questionable things to boost their sales, including selling stuff banking products to people even if its doubtful they'll need them or may even be damaging to a customer. Why bother trying to convince someone they need a credit card, after they already told you they had problems with them in the past?

quote:

---

My point is that what kind of corporate citizenship is it' whay kind of image making/marketing is it, to pursue a cheated, defrauded spouse through to the Court of Appeal for 15 or 20 grand; a write-off that would cost the bank nothing.

---

She owes the bank that money by virtue of her agreement with it. Why shouldn't they collect?

On a similar note, it's only now come to my attention that I'm required to pay back my student loan! Why didn't someone tell me?? More importantly, why won't they write off my student loan? They have millions of dollars, so it would be easy for them. If they don't, I'll have to pay it back, and it won't be as easy for me to pay it back as it would for them to just write it off! And it's certainly not my fault that I forgot all about the important documents I signed, right? Am I just supposed to quit my job and sit around all day memorizing important contracts that I'm a signatory to? Huh?

Where's the customer service here, I ask!

quote:

---

Are there any advocacy groups which explicitly want heavy regulation of the banking sector and/or outright nationalization? Let me know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesR:
My point is that what kind of corporate citizenship is it' whay kind of image making/marketing is it, to pursue a cheated, defrauded spouse through to the Court of Appeal for 15 or 20 grand; a write-off that would cost the bank nothing.

---

I may have missed something in accounting class, but that write-off would have cost the bank $20,000 before taxes. They also now have an unmatched deposit liability of $20,000 which the depositors may be able to ask for at short notice.

She should also have arranged that any claims by her ex that they were back together be confirmed by her before he was allowed to add to anything. That's a ploy that many spouses have used to leave their ex's with the responsibility.