![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts I had...
Feb. 9th, 2006 10:10 pmABS brakes feel like someone firing a machine gun under the car.
No, that wasn't the main though that has me posting this... just... I had this thought today... because I was late in getting my wages, I delayed in sending of payment for one of my bills, didn't want the payment to bounce after all, sensible, no? Soon as I got paid on Tuesday (should have been the Friday before), I sent the payment which was a few days late by that time.
Today I get a snotty call from the company wanting to know where their payment was and so I explained the situation and that I had already sent the cheque. The person then said, 'oh but that will take 7-10 days to clear' (which of course is a load of BS in my experience maybe 4-7 but... anyway), 'can't you cancel that check and make a payment by debit card over the phone now?'
(Here's where the thought I had comes in)...
'No I would not,' said I... because completely aside from the fact that my bank would charge me for a cancelled chq. unless I could prove it was lost in the post (and yes, he argued with me that this was not true, even when I told him, quite curtly by this point, that my bank had in the past /told/ me that this was true)... completely aside from that fact, I had no proof that he was who he said he was. He had no secret password that I could ask him to reveal various letters from, like the fourth letter and the ninth letter and so on.
He understood, he claimed, that people were nervous about giving such details on the phone but he could assure me he was who he said he was, and proceeded to give me my account number. Not good enough, I said, anyone could have that number so it proves nothing except that he knows my account number and I would /not/ be making a debit card payment. He goes away, putting me on hold for a moment, (obviously checking with a supervisor or something), and returns a few moments later making a note that I sent the cheque and asking again why it was late. Quite pissed off with the guy by now, I said in a very low tone of voice, "I told you that at the beginning of our conversation," and re-explained all about the wages fiasco from the end of last week/beginning of this week. He then informs me that because I refused to make the debit card payment I would probably get telephone calls every day until the cheque clears. I said this was fine... (I can always hang up and/or not answer my mobile).
Anyway, my point is this... In these days of increasing identity theft and financial fraud, why, when banks and things rightly ask for some kind of security check if you call them, do they get a little put out when you point out to them that you should be able to do the same if /they/ call /you/? For instance, why couldn't I say, "What's the fifth letter of my security word?" Surely it would not be too difficult for banks and so on to have a computer programme that could provide them with that information from the bank's system. Why should we be expected to take on faith that a person calling us on a financial matter is who they say they are without any kind of security? And why should I be punished for insisting on one? Wasn't /my/ fault that my employers bank screwed up and inconvenienced me with paying late... Yeah... I'm kind of upset about this one.
No, that wasn't the main though that has me posting this... just... I had this thought today... because I was late in getting my wages, I delayed in sending of payment for one of my bills, didn't want the payment to bounce after all, sensible, no? Soon as I got paid on Tuesday (should have been the Friday before), I sent the payment which was a few days late by that time.
Today I get a snotty call from the company wanting to know where their payment was and so I explained the situation and that I had already sent the cheque. The person then said, 'oh but that will take 7-10 days to clear' (which of course is a load of BS in my experience maybe 4-7 but... anyway), 'can't you cancel that check and make a payment by debit card over the phone now?'
(Here's where the thought I had comes in)...
'No I would not,' said I... because completely aside from the fact that my bank would charge me for a cancelled chq. unless I could prove it was lost in the post (and yes, he argued with me that this was not true, even when I told him, quite curtly by this point, that my bank had in the past /told/ me that this was true)... completely aside from that fact, I had no proof that he was who he said he was. He had no secret password that I could ask him to reveal various letters from, like the fourth letter and the ninth letter and so on.
He understood, he claimed, that people were nervous about giving such details on the phone but he could assure me he was who he said he was, and proceeded to give me my account number. Not good enough, I said, anyone could have that number so it proves nothing except that he knows my account number and I would /not/ be making a debit card payment. He goes away, putting me on hold for a moment, (obviously checking with a supervisor or something), and returns a few moments later making a note that I sent the cheque and asking again why it was late. Quite pissed off with the guy by now, I said in a very low tone of voice, "I told you that at the beginning of our conversation," and re-explained all about the wages fiasco from the end of last week/beginning of this week. He then informs me that because I refused to make the debit card payment I would probably get telephone calls every day until the cheque clears. I said this was fine... (I can always hang up and/or not answer my mobile).
Anyway, my point is this... In these days of increasing identity theft and financial fraud, why, when banks and things rightly ask for some kind of security check if you call them, do they get a little put out when you point out to them that you should be able to do the same if /they/ call /you/? For instance, why couldn't I say, "What's the fifth letter of my security word?" Surely it would not be too difficult for banks and so on to have a computer programme that could provide them with that information from the bank's system. Why should we be expected to take on faith that a person calling us on a financial matter is who they say they are without any kind of security? And why should I be punished for insisting on one? Wasn't /my/ fault that my employers bank screwed up and inconvenienced me with paying late... Yeah... I'm kind of upset about this one.
