I've recently been going through my password manager and closing inactive accounts. 9 out of 10 websites don't have a "close account" function, you have to talk to the support. Unfortunately these conversations are often similar to the ones in the article. You get to talk to 5 different agents, you receive a confirmation your account is closed but your login credentials still work, eventually your login credentials become invalid but they still send promotional email to your email address, and so on.
A short conversation with a bank
31–40 of 316 posts
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#32the existence of a terrible bank doesn't mean they're all awful like any market, there are competently run companies and there are terrible ones (e.g. HSBC)
Can you please name for me any that you think are good?
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are competently run companies You're just gonna leave us hanging like that?
I thought about it but I don't want to reveal who I bank with sorry :)
Then why even bother? Really? You bank with some one that you feel like is good, but you won't tell people the name? Fine, you think that reveals TMI. Then don't tell us who you bank with, but tell us what bank you feel is good and the maybe some supporting reasons. You could do that without, "that's who I bank with".
Otherwise, this was a completely wasted/pointless use of electrons.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are competently run companies You're just gonna leave us hanging like that?
I thought about it but I don't want to reveal who I bank with sorry :)
The question, though: is that to avoid more targeted attacks against you (like not telling people you own gold or bitcoin) or to avoid your bank becoming so successful that they can use their market position to become abusive to customers (like not telling people where you get your news on the off chance that you have a trustworthy source of news)?
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#35A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month: BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form! Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway? BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response t…
Generally, anything not-for-profit and older than 40 years is a technological shit-show. There's neither the individual or management will to successfully migrate or upgrade at the pace required. Consequently, everything is held together with duct tape and person-hours.
I worked for a 80+ year old non-profit. Their tech was definitely a shit show before I turned it around. I won't be surprised if it ends up degrades into a shit show again in a decade or so.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#36Fidelity is great. I don't work for Fidelity. For example, this week I needed some cost basis information on a transfer between accounts with unlike registration. Couldn't get it online. I emailed them. They responded via secure message with exactly what I wanted in 2 business days.
I can't tell if this is a joke, or a serious attempt at telling us how good a company is by someone that drank the kool-aid.
2 days to receive answer to a simple question? Responded via secure message? What does that entail?
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#37“customer service agent: would you be able to participate in a customer satisfaction survey to provide feedback on how we did after this call?
you: if I don’t give you a good rating in this survey will you get fired?
customer service agent: yes”
This particular aspect of modern society really bothers me
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true, they maintain them as a backup in case you corner a customer service representative on the phone and they are about to have to do what you asked. That's when they tell you you need to visit a branch.
Branches are equally powerless. See: Bank of America's policy on two-party "and" checks. I walk in, having had a checking account with them for decades: "Hi, I need to deposit a two-party check into my account here. This is the other party with me, and we're happy to show ID." Door greeter / agent: "Sure, I can do that for you." {Proceeds to verify my information and set up deposit on her tablet} "Hmm." {Walks over t…
I have found that, as long as your name is on the check, they will allow you to deposit a two-party check via the BofA app.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and then in the branch they call the customer service line, and hand you the phone.
OMG I've had that experience! It was ... weird.
Same here. It's not weird, it's abuse.
The only time you get any service is when you are looking to saddle yourself with debt or they have to comply due to regulations.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#40“customer service agent: would you be able to participate in a customer satisfaction survey to provide feedback on how we did after this call? you: if I don’t give you a good rating in this survey will you get fired? customer service agent: yes” This particular aspect of modern society really bothers me
If I do those I just give glaring reviews so as to possibly relieve some small bit of human suffering.