A British woman lost NZ$1.4m to scammers after she instructed her bank to transfer the money to an account in the United Arab Emirates. She alleged the bank had a duty of care to (my words) nurse-maid her.
The five Supreme Court judges unanimously overthrew an earlier Court of Appeal verdict in her favour which was being challenged by the bank, the previous High Court original case having been decided in the bank’s favour.
Let’s get into the guts of the issue. A bank’s primary function is as an on-call depository for people’s money. It provides other ancillary services such as money-lending and making payments instructed by its clients. Nothing more.
No-one is forced to use banks, but if one does so, then don’t blame them for following the account-holder’s instructions.
I deplore the very New Zealand practise of slamming them and their alleged excessive profits but most of all I find appalling the blaming of them for one’s own self-inflicted misjudgements. As said, it’s so very contemporary New Zealand in too many ways, whether the 300lb solo mom of six children claiming working New Zealanders aren’t giving her enough money to survive, and without irony and contrary to the photographic evidence, how she is going without food so her children can eat. Or on the other side of the ledger, the privately-owned businesses with their hands in the public pocket in a rich diversity of ways.
One interesting revelation from this Supreme Court verdict was the report that authorised bank payment scams cost Brits NZ1.2 billion dollars annually. Compare that to New Zealand’s current bank scam losses of circa $200 million.
In other words Kiwis statistically are twice as gullible as Brits on a population basis. A nicer interpretation is they’re more trusting. Take your pick.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
Let’s get into the guts of the issue. A bank’s primary function is as an on-call depository for people’s money. It provides other ancillary services such as money-lending and making payments instructed by its clients. Nothing more.
No-one is forced to use banks, but if one does so, then don’t blame them for following the account-holder’s instructions.
I deplore the very New Zealand practise of slamming them and their alleged excessive profits but most of all I find appalling the blaming of them for one’s own self-inflicted misjudgements. As said, it’s so very contemporary New Zealand in too many ways, whether the 300lb solo mom of six children claiming working New Zealanders aren’t giving her enough money to survive, and without irony and contrary to the photographic evidence, how she is going without food so her children can eat. Or on the other side of the ledger, the privately-owned businesses with their hands in the public pocket in a rich diversity of ways.
One interesting revelation from this Supreme Court verdict was the report that authorised bank payment scams cost Brits NZ1.2 billion dollars annually. Compare that to New Zealand’s current bank scam losses of circa $200 million.
In other words Kiwis statistically are twice as gullible as Brits on a population basis. A nicer interpretation is they’re more trusting. Take your pick.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
2 comments:
To Sir Robert Jones.
In light of this article, it would be interesting to know you "thoughts" on the "current scandal" involving several noted British Banks, on their "cancelling customers", especially those who are considered, by EU definition as being PEP's (Politically Exposed Persons) and/or for other reasons.
Which is an interesting factor, considering UK Banks work under British Law, and not direction from the EU.
I raise this question, in light of what Coutts Bank (owned by NatWest, UK) "did to Nigel Farage", to the point of "leaking data" to the (very) left wing & biased BBC.
When Nigel F, went public, it opened up a "can of worms", when other British Citizens came forward and spoke of being denied access to Banking Facilities.
I am advised that this has created "a retaliatory" reaction from the British Public.
I would also point out that I am aware that we have had here in NZ, a person who due to his Political views, after pressure was applied firstly to his -
- Employer, who removed from his business, and then his
- NZ Bank, who then declined to continue a customer's account.
Your thoughts would be appreciated, Sir Robert.
ANON, of New Zealand.
The same thing has happened here in NZ - Family First had a full page newspaper advertisement pulled the day of publication because it did not fit the mainstream media's 'values'. The advertisement was intended to coincide with Family First's campaign launch asking the question, "What is a woman?" Hardly an illegal proposition, and unlikely to lead to mass cancellations of newspaper subscriptions. Just another blow to free speech ...
Post a Comment