Wednesday, January 21, 2015

NOT ENOUGH SECURITY

We are exhorted in endless ways to be security conscious, are we not? ...YES WE ARE.

Don't do this, don't answer that, we won't  phone you, we shall never ask you anything personal etc. etc.

I received a phone call. The guy asked for me by my surname, introduced himself with a first name and told me he was phoning about an issue I had raised about [nameless] bank. So that we could discuss the matter he would first need to go through security with me; so saying, he launched into the first (and last) personal question .

Giving me a first name was not sufficient for me, though he evidently thought it was.

No, he couldn't tell me anything more without going through security with me. And, if I was refusing to clear security with him then he could not give me any information.

One sided security here, ringing all the alarm bells. If  the call was being recorded, I wanted it to be recorded that this call was unsatisfactory. Like a good girl, I was keeping to the security rules and keeping mine safe. Surely, for his part to confirm his status to me, information could be given about when the issue was raised at least and perhaps who may have dealt with any call relating to it. (Those were my questions).

The answer: you've probably guessed it - not without me going through the [ bank's] security, with which, given the nature of the call, I was not going to oblige. Obviously tetchy, he said, in that case he would have to write to me.

I offered to phone him. Yes, I could have a number to call him on but, (there's always a but isn't there) " I am between two floors and you might not get me."
  
I await a letter.






10 comments:

Vincent said...

Well done, I would have done exactly as you did. In any case I prefer letters. But I've found that banks and credit card companies are hopeless with letters, using a standard wording that doesn't fit the case, or the letter arrives two weeks after the date printed on it, or is sent several times, sometimes the identical letter, sometimes contradicting the previous one, without explanation; or not at all.

We won't let them beat us!

godschool said...

Indeed, we get far too many calls like this - many of them, it has to be said, for the people who previously had our number. We've devised a number of ways of having 'fun' with this sort of call.

Funny, isn't it: the more we talk about security, the more insecure we feel.

flightplot said...

I think that I would have ended the conversation sooner rather later! Flighty xx

ZACL said...

Hi Vincent,

It is very sloppy for institutions who say they care about our security to be communicating in this manner. Like you, I prefer the written word.

ZACL said...

You are right Gilly, there are far too many calls that are inappropriate. Our Securities and insecurities do seem to merge.

ZACL said...

Mr F you are so right. There will, no doubt, be a next time, a much shorter one! xx

zalandeau said...

When I receive this sort of call, I answer (in French because it's less rude) ;

"Va te faire enculer et ne viens plus me faire chier, ou j'irai te faire bouffer ton téléphone" !!!

Snowbird said...

I get so annoyed re these callers, I worry how many older people get ripped off by them, they don't seem to care who they target. The cheek of it too....I've had a few similar calls and just say I'll pop into my local branch...xxx

ZACL said...

Zalandeau! Bien fait!! Il y a un esprit des paroles. :)

Je vais faire lui apprendre.

Bises

ZACL said...

Indeed Snowbird, it is irritating. The institution referred to in the call does not have branches. Your suggested option for this one is not available.

Any bank on the high street I have a relationship with, rarely calls. When they do, there are means by which we know who is talking. xx