LLOYDS TSB BANK FOLLOW-UP

Do you remember the piece I posted on 17 September 2010 called ‘Big Brother works at Lloyds TSB’? It was about security problems I was having with my bank, Lloyds TSB, and it was largely concerned with my attempt to buy some sofas at Marks and Spencer. To save you going back to find the whole piece I’ve pasted in the bit about buying the sofas. You’ll find it below. I’d like you to go through this again and then I’ll tell you what happened when I made a complaint about my treatment to Lloyds TSB.

I am now in a nearby city in Marks and Spencer with my wife and we are buying some sofas. It has been a long time since we bought sofas. The last ones we bought were very cheap and now, twelve years or so later, it shows. We have done the research. We have found a model of sofa that is perfect for us. And we are going to buy three of them. Don’t be envious. We’re getting on a bit.

Earlier that morning we had bought a new TV from John Lewis. It was quite expensive and I paid for it using my new Lloyds TSB credit card. (I said, don’t be envious – we’ve earned it). The payment went through without a hitch.

Back to sofas. Big money this time. A few thou. As I passed over my card to the M&S lady I thought there might be trouble as it was a large sum but that would be reasonable, they are just protecting us. There was trouble. There’s no explanation. The card goes into the machine and … transaction not accepted. Using the M&S ‘phone on the desk before me, surrounded by other customers and staff I ‘phoned Lloyds TSB Telephone Banking. Usual rigmarole with numbers tapped in. I found myself talking to woman in Fraud. She had three security questions to put to me. The second one came as a bolt from the blue. What was the month of my son Julian’s birthday?

Well, I’m almost never speechless but this time I’ll admit to being surprised to the point of shock. My son, Julian, died eleven years ago aged 23 years. It was the most painful time in our lives and our grief continues. I don’t remember exactly what I said to the woman but I told her that I thought this question had no place in their Security procedure. I refused to answer it. She gave me a third question which I answered correctly. The woman then told me that I had failed the Security questions and that the only way I could clear the block on my account was to go to a Lloyds TSB branch and present photo ID. I made it very clear that I was extremely unhappy about their inclusion of anything to do with my deceased son in their security procedure and said I wanted it to be removed – and we would go find a branch.

We excused ourselves to the M&S lady. Told her we’d be back soon. Left the shop and went off to find a branch of Lloyds TSB. Found one. Yes, there was a queue, a long queue. We waited until a member of staff was available. Jessica was her name and she was as helpful as could be. I explained the difficulty over the security problem, made the point about the unacceptability of that one question and showed her my driving licence with signature and photograph. They have a copy of my signature on the computer and it clearly matched the one on the license. So get this clear; I have proved my identity. Agreed?

To facilitate matters Jessica ‘phoned the Fraud department of Telephone Banking to confirm that I had proved my identity. After a while she passed the ‘phone to me and I found myself speaking to a man. A man who told me that he must ask me three security questions ….

The four dots above are to indicate a slight hiatus in the conversation. You know what I said to him. It started with ‘Why?’ The fact that I had proved my identity didn’t seem to mean a thing to him. OK, ask away. Let’s get this over with. The second piece of information I had to provide was the month of my son’s birth. At this point Jessica, who had been listening to the conversation as far as she was able, put her hand up to her face in astonishment. I explained my position on the matter of this particular security question. He asked me the third question, which I answered correctly. I put the ‘phone down believing that all was now well. We returned to M&S and told the Sales person that we could now resume the purchase.

No we couldn’t. The card was refused again.

This time the M&S lady called someone in their company from the Authorisation department in an attempt to move things on. I do not know what this person did exactly but the impression I got was that they had gone through to Lloyds TSB. Whoever I found myself speaking to said that I had to answer three security questions …. and more dots.

And yes, the second question concerned the month in which our son was born.

I was by now getting agitated and just a little bit distraught. All right. I’d get this over with now and deal with the crass insensitivity of these idiots later. ‘It was June’ I almost yelled. Of course I was wrong. Julian was born in November. He died in June. I did know that. A psychiatrist might explain how and why I gave the wrong answer to a question that should never have been put.

So I failed the security test.

Back to the branch of Lloyds TSB where Jessica was still at her desk. She picked up the ‘phone and started to talk to someone. When she had finished she told us that the block had been lifted and all would now be well.

Back to M&S where we completed the purchase.

Now, dear reader, what conclusions do we draw from the above? The obvious one must be that this security process is not about proving one’s identity, it is about answering correctly three questions chosen arbitrarily by someone who has something missing in their mental makeup – and answering those questions is all there is to it. Note that I proved my identity beyond any reasonable doubt when I presented my driving licence. Note that on the first occasion of my grilling I protested about the question concerning my son – and I did mention then that he was dead – and I did make it very clear that the question upset me. But the system operated by Lloyds TSB does not factor in how their staff should respond to a situation like this. It is, I am sure, far easier to employ staff and say, ‘Your job is to put three questions to them and if they don’t answer – no matter what they say – you block them. Don’t listen to their blathering just block them’. So they went on asking that damned question like automata.

The day after this time-wasting business I wrote a letter of complaint. I described what had happened and the effect it had had on me. I summarised my complaints starting with an objection to the blocking of the account in the first place – but this was not at the heart of it. I went on to ask why the provision of photo ID was insufficient for their purposes. I complained of the fraud staff’s inefficiency and total disregard for my feelings which resulted in much unhappiness and the waste of almost a whole morning. I specifically said:

‘The security question concerning my son’s birth obviously caused me considerable concern and yet it was repeated twice more. ... I demand that you remove all reference to my son from whatever file of information you use for security question.’

Note that I made only one demand and did not ask for any form of compensation, I did not even ask for an apology although subsequently that would be offered. Nothing I said could be taken as a demand for financial compensation.

Some four weeks later I received a letter from Richard Neame, Card Operations Customer Relations, which addressed my complaints about the incident and apologised unreservedly for how I had been treated. As to my demand for the removal of all reference to my son from their file his reply was interesting. He said:

‘… the questions we asked were in a multiple choice format and were based on information fed to us via a company called R.S.A. who hold information freely available in the public domain’.

He later added:
‘I’d like to reassure (sic) I’ve requested a senior manager in our Fraud Operations Department to contact R.S.A. directly and get your late son’s date of birth erased from their records. This action will prevent any unnecessary upset in the future’.

He then added:
‘Due to the sensitive nature of your complaint I have been unable to assess a financial figure of compensation as I feel it would be inappropriate for me to estimate the upset that this has caused you’.

Seems OK, yes? Note that the matter of financial compensation has been raised. I had not raised it you will remember.

Look at the financial compensation aspect first. I had never thought to ask for money but when I saw there might be some I thought that I could give to charities. There are two local bodies that do great work and, perhaps, I could split it between them – whatever ‘it’ turned out to be. I was not out of pocket because of the Bank’s actions so, well, why not? I replied and suggested that they refund the sum of money that they had so persistently refused me access to, namely £2,997.00.

In another letter sent around the same time I asked for full contact information on the R.S.A. company so that I might make a request for information under the Data Protection Act.

Fairly soon Mr. Neame ‘phoned me at home (and soon after confirmed what he had said in a letter). He said he had been misinformed about the role of R.S.A. . He said that R.S.A. ‘are only responsible for building the software interface which feeds the information to us on which we base our security questions. Basically, they build the system in a way that works for us and we ask the questions’. He went on, ‘In fact the information is provided by the credit reference agencies and the data they hold on you’.

The letter also told me that my card had been added to an ‘exclusion list’ which means that I’ll never be asked security questions again but they will nevertheless refund any transactions confirmed as being fraudulent in the future ‘as we are obligated to do so’ (sic). This is a neat solution to the problem but what it doesn’t do is remove personal information from the files – wherever they may be – which is what I have demanded. If we go back to Mr Neame’s first reply we have him saying that he has asked a senior manager to get back to R.S.A. to erase information concerning my son’s birth from its files. Then later he tells me that the whole R.S.A. thing was wrong and that they don’t hold such information. Although I have accepted the action and will appreciate not having to run the gauntlet of the security questions I realise that in essence security questions do act in my favour. All I have done is object to one specific question – and, by implication, any more similar to it. I am therefore uneasy about this and wonder why they didn’t just remove data on my deceased son.

In turn this makes me wonder exactly where this data is held. It’s not with R.S.A. (mentally, I’m beginning to add, ‘Whoever they are’). In his finalising letter Mr Neame confirms that that the information on which the bank bases its security questions is gathered from Credit References Agencies, of which there are three: Experian Ltd., Callcredit Plc and Equifax Plc. And says, with the slightest suggestion of pique, that I should check my credit file with these companies.

(Dear Reader, I did. All three companies offer a free trial period during which time one may obtain a free personal credit report. However, one has to subscribe to their service as a first step. This means a formal application where one supplies name, address, username, password and credit card data. One signs up to a subscription which may be cancelled within so many days (during which time a free copy of your credit report may be supplied). Having downloaded the report, one cancels – but this may only be done by telephone and it’s not always easy to get through. I did all this and obtained my credit reports – none of which carried any personal data remotely resembling the sort of stuff I was looking for. Perhaps, as a result of my complaint, the data was all removed but I don’t think so. The time it took to do all this made me believe that I was beginning to earn some financial compensation. It was interesting, however, to see the details of checks made on me by ‘Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc –Rsa Securi’. Now, where have I seen that RSA before? Who are these people? )

The telephone conversation moved on to money. In short he said that they would pay me £200. I said that this was somewhat less than the figure I had suggested. He said he would go ‘consult’ and get back to me.

This money issue had started to overlay the real issue. It certainly caused me some mental confusion as to what was the proper response to the Bank’s offer. Wherever the money was going to go we were talking about equating a really unpleasant and grief-provoking experience lasting a very long time with cash. Had my wife and I (and she was present all the time – would she trust me to buy sofas all by myself?) been bashed to the tune of £200? Or £2,997? The only conclusion I could draw was that the sum should have some significance in the light of the organisation doing the bashing – an organisation that pays its own people very generously as we all know.

In his follow-up letter Mr. Neame finalised the matter fairly quickly. £350 and that’s an end to it. Sign the paper and it’s finished. My reply suggested £1000 and he rejected it saying that his was the bank’s final response. If I wanted to take the matter further I should contact the Financial Ombudsman.

Well, I resisted the temptation to grab the £350 and run so Volunteer Action and the Oundle & District Care Committee will have to wait a while. I’ve filed a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman. I’ve done this because there is no-one else to go to and I’d just like to see how this one runs. Perhaps there needs to be a Hurt Feelings Ombudsman? This complaint of mine did not start out as a financial dispute, it has been turned into one and I’m not quite sure why. Perhaps offering a bit of money is part of the flak-catcher’s weaponry? The money changes the tone and direction of a complaint about which there is obviously not much a vast organisation like this bank can do beyond apologise. And I will say this in favour of Mr. Neame and his bank; the apologies were sincere and comprehensive and I suspect that my buggering them about as I have done will make them just a little more careful when their Fraud squad sets about grilling honest citizens; they just didn’t place much value on the harm their systems had done, that’s all.

(Interested readers might well spend some time Googling the US Company R.S.A. which obviously enjoys a close relationship with Lloyds TSB Bank Plc.)