Re: Bank disclosing personal info to third party
Deadrat
news:ucmoe595tsm8mascl...@4ax.com:
> My wife an I have a joint account at a bank in Minnesota.
> We moved 2 years ago, and did a change of address for
> the joint account.
> The other day, my wife tried to purchase airline tickets, and
> the bank denied the charges to go through.
> We finally determined the problem to be that the bank did not
> change the address of her debit card.
> After calling customer service , the address was changed, and
> the airline charge went through after another attempt.
>
> At no time did the customer service rep tell me that a verification
> would be sent to the old address.
But of course if you'd spent ten seconds thinking about it instead of
getting your panties into a knot, then you'd have figured out why they
sent the change of address notification to the old address: it
forestalls fraud. You *called* customer service. Presumably you
identified yourself to the satisfaction of the bank, but what if someone
had hijacked that information and rerouted your bank statements to their
address? How long would it take for you to figure that out unless a
notice went to your "old" address.
> We now have a notice from
> the bank stating that our address has been updated, and the
> same notice went to the old address.
>
> I do not want the person living at the old address to have ANY
> info on us. I did not know or authorize the bank to send any
> of my info to that old address.
In all likelihood, they sent a notice to the old address saying that
their records indicate that you had authorized a change to your account
information, and that if you didn't do this, then you should call them
immediately.
> I have approached the bank, with no success in knowing
> exactly what info they released to that 3rd party. It is very
> important to me to know if any info was released. The bank
> will not disclose to me exactly what info they did disclose.
The contents of the bank's notice are probably innocuous, so I don't
know why they won't tell you what's in it. Just how obnoxious were you
when you asked? If you want to find out what's in the notice, change
your account information again. Add the four digit extension to your
zipcode or add a middle initial to the account holder's name.
> I believe the info the bank has about me is ONLY between me and the
> bank.
And the IRS. And DHS. And the FDIC. And the credit rating agencies.
> They have no authorization from me to release info without my
> knowledge or my consent.
I've got some bad news. Maybe you'd better sit down.
When you opened your account, you signed documents basically saying that
you agree with whatever procedures the bank has in place and that you
also agree they can change those procedures at any time.
In any case, it's unlikely that the bank released any information about
you.
> This is serious enough for me to contact a lawyer.
No, it isn't. They're already laughing at you over at your bank. You
want people at a lawyer's office to join in?
> Do I have a case?
For what? Even if the bank neglected some fiduciary duty (and they most
likely didn't), what damages have you sustained?
I've got some more bad news for you, so I hope you're still sitting
down. The banks wrote the banking laws. Paragraph 3(a)(iii) says that
no matter the dispute, the bank wins.
Deadrat
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:28:00 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>L Crumbly <dudlyd...@fastmail.fm> wrote in
>>news:ucmoe595tsm8mascl...@4ax.com:
>>
<snip/>
>>> We finally determined the problem to be that the bank did not
>>> change the address of her debit card.
<snip/>
>>> At no time did the customer service rep tell me that a verification
>>> would be sent to the old address.
>>
>>But of course if you'd spent ten seconds thinking about it instead of
>>getting your panties into a knot, then you'd have figured out why they
>>sent the change of address notification to the old address: it
>>forestalls fraud. <snip/>
> And if the bank had spent ten seconds thinking that for 2 years we
> were getting the mail at the new address, and that for 2 years we
> have not had anything to do with the old address.
I'll bet we've discovered the source of some of your confusion. Your
wife's debit card had the old address and the associated bank account had
the new address (and for 2 years). (The bank's system should have
updated the addresses in both places, but it didn't.) When you updated
the debit card, the bank's system automatically sent a notice to the old
address. I doubt that any thinking was involved. The bank's personnel
had no more idea about or influence over that mailing than they did about
the original oversight.
> The bank will
> conduct business over the phone after their verification process are
> willing to actually do monetary transactions. If that verification is
> good enough to conduct monetary transactions, it should be good enough
> for change of address, to fix a mistake they made over 2 years ago.
I'd have to agree with this, but the mistake is in the bank's computer
system, which violated one of the cardinal rules of software: never make
two working copies of anything you're not willing to spend the money to
keep in sync.
<snip/>
>>In all likelihood, they sent a notice to the old address saying that
>>their records indicate that you had authorized a change to your
>>account information, and that if you didn't do this, then you should
>>call them immediately.
>
> No, the notice sent to my new address says, that an identical notice
> was sent to the old address. My notice had my new address inside
> the sealed card. If it was identical, then that is what it means. They
> disclosed (handed over) information that I did not want the person
> at the old adress to have knowledge of.
Well, identical means identical, but you really need to see the notice
sent to the old address. Let's not trust a bank that can't get its
records in sync. Assuming that the notices were in fact identical, what
was disclosed? Your new address? Anything else?
>>> I have approached the bank, with no success in knowing
>>> exactly what info they released to that 3rd party. It is very
>>> important to me to know if any info was released. The bank
>>> will not disclose to me exactly what info they did disclose.
>>
>>The contents of the bank's notice are probably innocuous, so I don't
>>know why they won't tell you what's in it. <snip/>
>
> If the bank can't answer as to what was sent, then I become a bit
> suspicious.
If you have to choose between incompetence and malfeasance, go with the
former.
> If it is all harmless then why can't they answer a simple question?
Probably because they don't know the answer. Whom have you talked to?
> It is far from obnoxious to ask what info was disclosed to the person
> at the old address.
Of course not. My question went to your manner of speaking not what you
spoke.
<snip/>
>>> I believe the info the bank has about me is ONLY between me and the
>>> bank.
>>
>>And the IRS. And DHS. And the FDIC. And the credit rating agencies.
>
> And I do not have anything to fear from any of those agencies.
> I do have fears about the person at the old address finding out
> where I now live. My address is NOT published anywhere. I have
> protected where I live, and now it is possible that the bank has
> handed over my address to that person on a silver platter.
Really? You're not worried about agents of the state or large
corporations, but you're worried about some random person who happens to
live at your old address and probably doesn't care where you live now?
>>> They have no authorization from me to release info without my
>>> knowledge or my consent.
>>
>>I've got some bad news. Maybe you'd better sit down.
>>
>>When you opened your account, you signed documents basically saying
>>that you agree with whatever procedures the bank has in place and that
>>you also agree they can change those procedures at any time.
>>
>>In any case, it's unlikely that the bank released any information
>>about you.
>
> Then I think it would be simple enough for the bank to show me that.
I'd have thought it would have been simple enough to keep the addresses
in sync, too.
> If I have agreed to this, then it should be easy enough for the bank
> to produce the document I signed, and show me the clause that
> clearly says they can do what they did.
You can do this yourself. Get out the agreement you signed and read the
small type.
>>> This is serious enough for me to contact a lawyer.
>>
>>No, it isn't. They're already laughing at you over at your bank. You
>>want people at a lawyer's office to join in?
>
> I don't think they are laughing.
You're probably right. They've probably dismissed it from their minds
already.
> I don't think a lawyer will be
> laughing, except when he gets a punitive judgement against them.
> Then we both will be laughing off to a new bank to deposit our
> settlement.
Revenge fantasies are great. I indulge in them all the time, but before
you leap to punitive damages, you'll have to figure out what duty the
bank breached.
> Look up some cases. Just because it is a company's policy does not
> make it right or legal.
If you agreed to the company's policy, then you probably have no case.
The policy can't have provisions that shock the conscience, violate
statute, or contract away future negligence, but I doubt any of those
obtain.
>>> Do I have a case?
>>
>>For what? Even if the bank neglected some fiduciary duty (and they
>>most likely didn't), what damages have you sustained?
>
> Punitive damages.
Punitive damages are awards given to deter a defendant found liable from
repeating some reprehensible action. Before you get punitive damages,
you have to get compensatory damages. And before you get compensatory
damages you have to show 1) that the bank violated some duty to you, and
2) that you actually suffered a measurable loss.
For 1), you need to show that the bank violated a provision of a contract
it had with you, or 2) the bank violated a tort.
> I have protected my address from disclosure to the
> person living at the old address, and until the bank can show me that
> they did not disclose it, I can only assume they did.
Let's even assume that they did. How much money did you lose because of
the disclosure?
>>I've got some more bad news for you, so I hope you're still sitting
>>down. The banks wrote the banking laws. Paragraph 3(a)(iii) says
>>that no matter the dispute, the bank wins.
>
> Yeah right.. The banks DO NOT write laws.
Do you really think that? That's adorable!
> Any ways judges make decisions.
And they generally comport with the law.
> So with your logic, if they decide to kill every 10th
> customer that enters their bank, they are protected.
Let's not get carried away here. Banks don't want to kill customers;
banks want to make money off them. And they've successfully lobbied to
make banking laws favor themselves.
> I do hope you are not a lawyer, just a crackpot on a keyboard.
Sorry, I should have posted my standard disclaimer. Here it is:
*** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***
But that doesn't make me a crackpot.
For your particular case, you'll need to consult an attorney. But before
you do that, here's some general advice for any such dispute:
1. Read the agreement you have with the bank to find out whether you have
essentially agreed in advance with their notification policy. You can
also find out whether you've agreed in advance to arbitration in this
dispute.
2. Figure out the basis for your claim. How is the bank in violation of
a tort or a contractual provision?
3. If all you're worried about is disclosure of your new address, is the
matter moot? I.e., Does your new address actually constitute private
information under banking regulations? If so, is your new address really
unknown? (Have you signed a petition? Have you had any dealings with a
court? What about your church bulletin? You may be surprised how public
your new address already is.)
4. Estimate your actual damages. A court can't order the bank to unsend
the notification; all it can do is get you money to make you whole. How
much money have you lost? Your unease about the notice may be worth
nothing in the eyes of the law.
5. Read your state statutes to find out whether you can get punitive
damages and if so, whether there's a cap. Some states don't have such
statues and leave this to case law.
6. From 4 and 5, estimate the maximum amount you can hope to recover.
Unless this is a large number, you'll have to pay your lawyer by the
hour. Pick some reasonable figure, say $200 per hour, and divide that
into the max amount you calculated. That'll give you the number of hours
of legal work you can afford to buy. Remember that the bank has an
entire department of lawyers on staff, and it's to their advantage to
stretch the matter out.
7. If 6 does not compute for you, then consider small-claims court.
You'll still need to do 1-4, and punitive damages are probably not
available, but you won't need a lawyer.
Steve Bartman
<dudlyd...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>No, the notice sent to my new address says, that an identical notice
>was sent to the old address. My notice had my new address inside
>the sealed card. If it was identical, then that is what it means. They
>disclosed (handed over) information that I did not want the person
>at the old adress to have knowledge of.
It seems to me, reading between the lines, that something very serious
occurred at the old address which relates to the current occupant,
something so serious that you have actively hidden yourself from them.
If so, perhaps you should have closed the bank account (and every
other tendril at the old address) when you left. It is now
long-standing practice by all financial organizations, including those
engaged in securities trading (rollover IRAs, Roths, etc.) to do the
double-mailing when an address change is encountered. Given their
fiduciary roles, and the degree of identity theft in the world today,
to not do this would be negligent.
You have a point about the two-year time lag, but only a small one. I
doubt very much that a human at the bank gave this situation the long
analytical process you seem to feel your due. A computer saw the
address change and handed it off to a sub-routine, which generated the
double-notice and mailed it.
Another responder is correct that you need to read the documents you
signed when you opened the account. They are the contract between you.
If the bank has violated their provisions, see a lawyer. If not, . . .
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.
Steve
Seth
Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:27:35 -0600, L Crumbly
><dudlyd...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>No, the notice sent to my new address says, that an identical notice
>>was sent to the old address. My notice had my new address inside
>>the sealed card. If it was identical, then that is what it means. They
>>disclosed (handed over) information that I did not want the person
>>at the old adress to have knowledge of.
>
>It seems to me, reading between the lines, that something very serious
>occurred at the old address which relates to the current occupant,
>something so serious that you have actively hidden yourself from them.
And it doesn't matter: depending on exactly what was on the outside of
the envelope, it might not even have been delivered. (E.g. "Do Not
Forward, Return to Sender if Undeliverable" or something like that
would cause the bank to get it back because the name on it does not
correspond with the name of the recipient at that address.)
Seth
Steve Bartman
>In article <kpfre51tsp1lq9apl...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me, reading between the lines, that something very serious
>>occurred at the old address which relates to the current occupant,
>>something so serious that you have actively hidden yourself from them.
>
>And it doesn't matter:
I knew that; it was merely preface.
depending on exactly what was on the outside of
>the envelope, it might not even have been delivered. (E.g. "Do Not
>Forward, Return to Sender if Undeliverable" or something like that
>would cause the bank to get it back because the name on it does not
>correspond with the name of the recipient at that address.)
And here I'm not sure THIS matters to the OP. His complaint seems to
be not primarily with the end state (resident at old address knows his
current whereabouts), but rather with the policy of
disclosure/notification itself. The harm he perceives comes from the
end-state, but he's angry at what he perceives to be a violation of
his business agreement with the bank.
FWIW, (and not much) when I've gotten these letters, only
coincidentally from a Minnesota bank as was the OP's, they have not
had the directive you describe on the outside envelope. And, in other
locales, I've also had the USPS forward mail that DID have this
directive. Mail carriers are busy people who do good work under
tremendous volume. But they sometimes make mistakes.
Steve