The Ombudsman for Financial Services should improve, simplify and expedite on its adjudication process and provide a cheaper and faster avenue for bank scams victims to recover their losses.
Yesterday, I have spent more than 3 hours to help a victim of bank scam to fill in the questionnaires prepared by the Ombudsman for Financial Services (OFS). It is not an easy task to answer all those questions set by the OFS and most laymen would find it too difficult to answer those questions properly.
The victim is Mr. Chew who found out that sometime on 28.4.2022, there were 3 unauthorised transfers of fund from his bank account with CIMB, namely:
- a sum of RM1,819 to FPXPAY SHOPPEE TOP UP
- a sum of RM1,950 to FPXPAY U Mobile Services Sdn Bhd
- a sum of RM3,000 to FPXPAY U Mobile Services Sdn Bhd
All 3 transfers were effected without Mr. Chew receiving any OTP or SMS messages from the Bank.
Upon his complaint to CIMB, subsequently RM1,819 was refunded to him but the Bank refused to refund him the 2 unauthorised transfers of the total sum of RM4,950 to U Mobile Services Sdn Bhd.
On the same day, his Credit Card issued by Maybank was also hacked and charged with 5 transactions of payment all to ShopeePayTop Up, totalling RM10,297.
I have helped him filed the claims with OFS against both banks and forwarded all necessary document to the OFS. Yet, the OFS was slow in the process. Meanwhile, Maybank continues to charge interest of more than RM100 per month.
Last month, I have also received reply from the Finance Minister on the performance of OFS and the statistics of successful claims filed by banks’ customers against banks. The statistics is most disappointing. It seems that the OFS protects the interest of the Banks more than the interest of the banks’ customers. That is definitely NOT the purpose of an ombudsman.
The reply from the Finance Minister shows that out of a total 157 claims filed with and adjudicated by the OFS, 140 of the claims were decided in favour of the Banks while the balance 17 cases either favours the bank’s customers or reached amicable settlement. In other words, the banks enjoyed an almost 90% winning rate in the OFS!
Ombudsman’s role is supposed to protect the underdogs, not those in the superior position. As between the 2 innocent parties, the Banks and the Bank’s customers, surely the Banks are in the superior position. Yet, the statistics show that the Ombudsman took the side of the Banks at the
expense of the customers.
For an average person, losing RM15,000 of his savings in his bank accounts could mean losing several months of salary. To most banks, the same RM15,000 is only 0.000001% of its annual revenue.
In the case of CIMB, its revenue in 2021 was RM19.51 billion while Maybank’s revenue for 2021 was RM45.96 billion. It is thus obvious, as between the 2 innocent parties (banks and their customers), who are in a better position to absorb the loss. Therefore, it is for the Ministry of Finance and Bank Negara to issue a directive order on this matter rather than leaving it to the whims and fancy of the OFS to act to the disadvantage of Banks’ customers.