babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Scotiabank Fraud

saga
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2006
 

Comments

saga
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2006
I am frustrated beyond belief with the Scotiabank!!

4 years ago I bought a house and got a mortgage thru Scotiabank because they offered the best rates. I signed all the papers, then the mortgage officer said I had to get mortgage insurance. I told him I didn't need it as I had plenty of life insurance. He said I had to have it or they wouldn't give me the mortgage. I signed under duress.

Two months ago I told the bank manager this, complaining still that I did not want that insurance. She said "Oh no ... he wouldn't have done that! We can't do that! It is illegal!"
I immediately wrote a letter demanding all of the premiums back (over $2000).

They refused, so I refused to pay my mortgage and told them to take it out of the money they stole from me. Well, they won't repay it, and the current manager sent my file in for forclosure on my house.

The president's office investigated, the bank employees lied, the ombudsman says "You have no evidence".

There is nothing you can do to help, but I just wanted to let off steam and warn people about Scotiabank's fraudulent practices.

SCOTIABANK SUCKS!!

ps ... When they come for me, I am chaining myself to the furnace! I am not Nelly McClung's distant descendant for nothing!! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 12 May 2007: Message edited by: saga ]


Albireo
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2002
Well, it sounds like you got an extremely dishonest and unscrupulous individual, who lied to you, and then denied it. And the bank chose to believe that person, rather than you. Did you ever find out if the bank has incentives built in for its staff to sell mortgage insurance? If so, that would be a motive for the person to "trick" you into getting the extra insurance.

I don't think that it was wise to "default" (in their eyes) as a way to fight it. Assuming that they stopped charging you for the insurance, then no *further* damage was being done -- but you were out $2000.

Then you could have continued to pay just your mortgage (under protest), while you fought for redress on the past insurance fees. I hope it is even possible now for you to get your payments back on track (making it clear that you are doing so under protest), and continue the fight against them on many fronts.

You could then write many emails and letters, like those suggested below, and always (politely) copy or write to inform "Scotiabank" -- by which I mean, here and below, the branch manager, a customer service manager/director, the VP that deals with branch operations in Canada, the President, and anyone else you can think of who might be relevant and have some ability to do something useful. Make it clear to them (each time) that you would be happy to stop doing this once they rectify the situation. Be sure not to say anything that is not true, or looks irrational.

Sample actions:

* write to Scotiabank to make it clear that, unless they properly address the problem, you will go elsewhere for your next mortgage renewal and all other banking services, and that you will urge all of your friends and relatives to do the same.
* find their biggest customers (corporate or otherwise), write to them to warn about the kind of treatment that is possible, and copy Scotiabank.
* file a complaint with Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to complain about their behaviour, and copy Scotiabank. (But you would be happy to withdraw the complaint if they resolve your situation).
* write to the relevant minister, party leaders and critics, and all members of the House of Commons Finance committee, urging them to impose regulations on the banks that would prevent that kind of situation from happening. Copy Scotiabank.
* write to home-owners associations, warning them about what could happen at Scotiabank, and that their members should be cautious about banking there. Copy Scotiabank.
* write to Kathy Tomlinson who does CTV National News' Whistleblower segment asking them to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank; and to Dale Goldhawk of CFRB radio asking HIM to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank. Write to CBC's Marketplace , and copy Scotiabank.

And so on. The point is not that CTV National will really go for it, or that homeowners associations will really tell all of their members, or that the bank's largest corporate customer will care about your case, etc. The point is that you are showing Scotiabank that you are going to be a big thorn in their side who is costing them a hell of a lot more than $2000, and that it really wouldn't take very much to shut you up. Perhaps they would give you your money back, or (if they can't, or want to save face) find a way to satisfy you that is worth at least $2000 to you.

I pursued exactly this kind of campaign against an airline that had ripped me off for several thousand dollars -- effectively, a coerced upgrade to business class after they had cancelled our flight due to a mechanical difficulty. We couldn't get home for at least a week, stranded somewhere we didn't want to be... unless, of course, we upgraded to business class, at our own cost. Someone else in line said that he would do just that, and then charge it back later. We tried that, as well, but the card company wouldn't do it, saying that I had agreed to the charge, and that my quarrel was with the airline. So quarrel I did... I complained to them, and they sent me a $500 travel voucher to appease me. But I wanted the full difference refunded, so I proceeded in the way I outlined above, writing to travel agencies, consumer advocacy shows, the Congressional Committee that regulates airlines, etc., always copying the airline, and writing to them regularly to inform them of my actions. Eventually, they refunded the full amount -- and I was even left with the extra $500 voucher.

So this kind of campaign can be successful -- but it takes some smart and persistent action. And, of course, not every company will be willing to give in when faced with something like this. Some might even try to silence you with a lawsuit that they know that you can't fight. But it's worth a try, and can be extremely satisfying when you win this knid of battle. I hope that you are not beyond the point where you can try something like this.

[ 11 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


saga
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2006
Thanks for the sources!

I am progressing down the avenues ... I found a BayStreet blog! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Will keep you posted.

Direct action ... gotta love it!! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]


If it's true, then it's not defamation.

How do you find their biggest customers?

Oh ... I called all the other branches in the area and warned them about slick seller Mike. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 12 May 2007: Message edited by: saga ]


Grover
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2004
Hey saga, what was your down payment on the place? I know if it is less than a certain amount (I believe it is 20%) then you are legally required to purchase mortgage loan insurance.

I don't believe life insurance qualfies as that will only pay the mortage if you die, wherease the mortage loan insurance is for any kind of non-payment. Canadian Mortgage and Housing usually provides it, I'm not sure if anyone else is allowed to.


Blind_Patriot
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2003
quote:Originally posted by Grover:
Hey saga, what was your down payment on the place? I know if it is less than a certain amount (I believe it is 20%) then you are legally required to purchase mortgage loan insurance.

I don't believe life insurance qualfies as that will only pay the mortage if you die, wherease the mortage loan insurance is for any kind of non-payment. Canadian Mortgage and Housing usually provides it, I'm not sure if anyone else is allowed to.

Don't get confused between CHMC fees and mortgage insurance. If you have less than 25% downpayment then CHMC will insure the balance for the banks benefit. If your lucky enough to buy a house for $100,000 and you only put down $15,000 then CHMC will insure the balance of 25%, which in this case is $10,000. $10K + $15K = $25K (25%) of the cost of the home. This is mandatory and a premium applies depending on the amount you are short. I think in this case $800 for the $10K. This is made to protect the bank.

I think Saga is talking about insuring the mortgage balance. I was offered the same thing for a wopping $75 a month. So if I were to die, the house would be paid for and my Kins would have nothing to worry about. However, I was told that it was optional. The bank employees make a cut from everything they sell you.

I cut off all my dealings with Scotiabank (ScotiaMcleod) a long time ago because of their greedy practices. I had a long struggle with them and I found that the only way was to break off dealing with them altogether and move my intrests elsewhere. I would seriously find out what the cost of getting out of your mortgage is. Then take your mortgage elsewhere. If you bought it 4 years ago, your mortgage should be up for renewal soon.

I hope this helps.

[ 18 May 2007: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


ghoris
Offline
Joined: May 29 2003
I'm constantly amazed at the stupid things people do as a way of 'fixing' wrongs done to them (real or perceived) because dammit, it's the principle of the thing, after all. So you got smooth-talked out of $2K - yeah, defaulting on your mortgage seems like a fair trade, and a good idea to boot! What could possibly go wrong? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

I think you should consult a lawyer before they foreclose. The courts take a pretty dim view of people who don't pay their mortgages and the banks will get an order nisi virtually as a matter of course. Do you really want the stress and aggravation of having to deal with the legal system? Do you really want to spend all the time and trouble trying to prove the bank 'cheated' you? Do you really want to lose your house over a lousy $2K?


ghoris
Offline
Joined: May 29 2003
quote:Originally posted by Albireo:

Sample actions:
....
* find their biggest customers (corporate or otherwise), write to them to warn about the kind of treatment that is possible, and copy Scotiabank.
* write to the relevant minister, party leaders and critics, and all members of the House of Commons Finance committee, urging them to impose regulations on the banks that would prevent that kind of situation from happening. Copy Scotiabank.
* write to home-owners associations, warning them about what could happen at Scotiabank, and that their members should be cautious about banking there. Copy Scotiabank.
* write to Kathy Tomlinson who does CTV National News' Whistleblower segment asking them to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank; and to Dale Goldhawk of CFRB radio asking HIM to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank. Write to CBC's Marketplace , and copy Scotiabank.

These are all great ideas if you want to get sued for defamation.


Albireo
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2002
Nonsense. You didn't pay much attention to my post. Did you notice this?: "Be sure not to say anything that is not true, or looks irrational."

Did you pay attention to any of the wording of those items? "...warn about the kind of treatment that is possible... ...warning them about what could happen ... be cautious about .... ...asking them to feature your case..."

And what "defamation" could there be in asking government to impose a regulation? Or asking a show to feature you story?

And if you say something that is hard to "prove" as being true, you can politely couch in hypotheticals and qualifying words and phrases like "it seems that", "possibly", "likely", "apparently", and so on...

If your story is true, there is no defamation, libel, slander or any such thing.

You also may not have noticed that I waged *precisely* this kind of campaign against an airline, and *won*.


ghoris
Offline
Joined: May 29 2003
I never said that it would be defamatory per se, just that it was inviting a lawsuit.

Anything capable of having a defamatory meaning is defamation - it doesn't matter if you 'couch' it in language like 'it seems that' and 'it appears that'. If you're accusing them of fraud, or saying "this is the kind of treatment you can expect", then it's defamatory unless you can prove it's true. Period.

People can be and have been successfully sued for writing to regulatory bodies and investigators, unless they can establish the defence of qualified privilege or the defence of truth.

Good for you that you managed to get some results through a letter-writing campaign. I'm sure it was worth all the time and effort. The company decided to throw some nuisance money your way, but they could just as easily have served you with a writ and made you incur the time, expense and aggravation of proving that what you said was true.

[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: ghoris ]


Albireo
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2002
Yes, it was worth it. What you refer to as "nuisance money" was for me a substantial sum that I couldn't afford to lose. If they had sued me, I would have fought it as well as I could have, and I would have ensured that their action against me got plenty of publicity. And if they really wanted to spend their money on legal action against me, and win -- as they likely would have, given their infinitely greater resources -- then they wouldn't even have been able to collect back their legal costs, as I would have had to declare bankruptcy.

For that reason, companies are usually reluctant to sue their own customers over something like this. It's bad for business, because it risks generating far more publicity for the complaints, and risks alienating their customers, both by drawing more attention to the complaints themselves, and to the fact that this company is willing to sue its customers. And all to go after somebody who can't really pay them anyway.

quote:Originally posted by ghoris:
Anything capable of having a defamatory meaning is defamation - it doesn't matter if you 'couch' it in language like 'it seems that' and 'it appears that'. If you're accusing them of fraud, or saying "this is the kind of treatment you can expect", then it's defamatory unless you can prove it's true. Period.
But I never said anything like "you can expect this". And I am not talking about using weasel-words for the sake of it. I directly told what I knew to be true, e.g. "after we boarded the plane, they canceled the flight and told us that it was because there was an indication of a mechanical problem". But if there is something that you are not sure about, you say it in that way. In the example above, you wouldn't say that the bank rep earned commission from selling you mortgage insurance, if you don't know that to be true. But you can say that he appeared highly motivated to sell you the insurance.

You are right, however, that if you *do* get sued for libel in Canada, it is difficult to defend yourself, because there is a reverse-onus... on you, the defendant, to prove that what you wrote was true. In the US, there is no reverse onus, and the plaintiff must prove that what you wrote was false. See for example this article about libel chill in Canada arising from the reverse onus.

quote:People can be and have been successfully sued for writing to regulatory bodies and investigators, unless they can establish the defence of qualified privilege or the defence of truth.
I'd like to see examples, if you have them. Do you think that a bank could sue you because you write to a regulatory body whose job it is to investigate complaints against banks, and say "here's my complaint against this bank -- please investigate"? That would be bizarre indeed, unless the complaint was completely frivolous and without merit.

In my case, one of the actions was to write to the FAA and to members of the congressional transportation committee, suggesting that they impose a regulation preventing airlines from doing certain things -- which of course included the very thing that they had done to me. Again, what basis would there be to sue me for making a suggestion of this sort? If I suggest to MPs that they impose a higher tax on oil, would the oil industry sue me for participating in the democratic process?

I'm not sure what approach would you suggest, other than asking them nicely, and rolling over if they say "no" -- because they might sue you. All I know is that my approach got me my money back, and your approach would have gotten me nothing.

---

EDIT: I should add that I don't really know how much of this applies in the case at the top of this thread. If you get into a battle like this, it's important to be on very solid ground with your complaint... Her case could be problematic given that she has been trying to get redress for one thing (the mortgage insurance) by defaulting on something else (the mortgage payments). I think it would have been much better to just pay the mortgage, and fight the other issue separately.

[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


ghoris
Offline
Joined: May 29 2003
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. There is a big difference between writing and saying "this is what happened, please investigate" and writing and saying "these people committed fraud", "these people are all crooks", "these people cheated me out of my money", etc.

And just so we are perfectly clear, I'm not trying to defend the bank or any large corporation who mistreats a customer. They threaten and commence lawsuits to try and intimidate people into silence, not because they feel their pride has been wounded (hence the term "libel chill"). What I took issue with in your previous post is to suggest that this particular individual, who is giving a very one-sided account of what happened and using words like "fraud", should start a letter-writing campaign without recognizing the risks and potential consequences of that course of action.

Maybe my attitude stems more from my deep suspicion of saga's story. I can't imagine that in a million years, even if caught out at something, a bank manager would ever confess to a customer that they had done something "illegal".

[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: ghoris ]


Albireo
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2002
Fair enough.

Grizzley
Offline
Joined: Mar 19 2008
I know what it is like to feel taken by a big bank. However, you have only hurt yourself by not making your mortgage payments. Are you aware that your late payments stay on your credit bureau for 6 or 7 years? Good luck in getting another company that is interested in transferring your mortgage if you are currently headed into forclosure. 1st thing you need to do it make your payments. 2nd of all, there is something called "tied selling". Your bank will have a government brochure on tied selling or you can google it to find out more info. Tied selling is illegal and if you think the bank rep told you that you have to take the insurance provided by the bank (talking about life insurance on the mortgage, not mortgage insurance done with cmhc or ge which is required if you made a down payment < 25% 4 yrs ago) in order to get the mortgage, that is probably tied selling. If you can prove tied selling was done, you may be able to get your mortgage life insurance premiums back. However, not in the way of missing your mortgage payment.

Grizzley
Offline
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Search under the FCAC website under tied selling.

Greenink
Offline
Joined: Mar 25 2008
Former bank manager pleads guilty to fraud charges.
Rodney Arnold Barton, 40, of Waverley, remains free on bail until sentencing Jan. 25. Documents filed in court claim Barton fraudulently removed funds from accounts at Scotiabank’s Wyse Road branch between Jan. 1997, and Sept. 2002. The bank would not comment when stories of an internal fraud investigation began circulating in 2005 after a manager was suspended amid allegations $1 million was siphoned from customer accounts.

Yibpl
Offline
Joined: Dec 5 2007
quote:Originally posted by Albireo:
[QB]Well, it sounds like you got an extremely dishonest and unscrupulous individual, who lied to you, and then denied it. And the bank chose to believe that person, rather than you. Did you ever find out if the bank has incentives built in for its staff to sell mortgage insurance? If so, that would be a motive for the person to "trick" you into getting the extra insurance.

...

Branch staff of the big 5 are under HUGE pressure to hit "sales" targets. I have seen low and mid level management turn a blind eye or even subtly encourage inappropriate behavior, while paying sanctimonious lip service to ethical behavior and "always putting the customer first". If any complaints are raised later the allegations are either adamantly denied or the employee is scapegoated and hung out to dry.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Yibpl ]


catfish
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2008
My dealings with the Scotia Bank

I purchased my first home on Sept 2006 I put 90,000 down and left 90,000 owing
My mortgage payment was 750.00 including property taxes for a 5 year term, only myself and my son were to be put on the mortgage as we were working but Rosa ***** (personal Bank Officer) insisted my wife must also be on the Mortgage I did not want her on this mortgage Nor did she but I was given no choice so I sighed the papers.
In March 2007 I received a tax bill in which the taxes were not taken out as per agreement I went immediately went to Rosa and claimed there was a mistake and at that time gave she gave me a five hundred dollar overdraft to cover taxes and the payment would be taken out as usual.
In April of 2008 My Wife Noticed this man in my front yard walking around She asked him what he was doing and who he was, He claimed he was from the Scotia Bank
And he was doing an occupancy agreement He had a badge on so he proceeded to ask her a few questions (number of people living here, if There were any a dogs, how many dependants. and he left.
In May 2008 I came home to find a man in my back yard I asked him what he was doing on my property and why was he in my back yard. He claimed he rang the bell and thought I was in the back he was from Scotia Bank doing a occupancy agreement I then said to him ‘is there a Problem that I need to know about ‘He said OH no Mr. **** this is just standard procedure and then proceeded to ask me some questions the same questions asked of my wife and even complemented me on how nice my yard looked.
In June of 2008 I was hand delivered a notice claiming I was in arrears 7,900 and I was to be evicted in 10 days The young man that delivered the notice looked right at my wife and said ‘ come on Evelyn why do you look surprised you seen me before and left she claimed she never seen him before. I called Scotia bank and asked for Rosa *** and she would not talk to me and claimed it was out her hands, My son and I went to Scotia bank to her office she was not cooperative at all I asked her why she did not contact me by letter, phone or email she told me if the money is not there the system stops taking it out “why was I not notified befor this" she said to leave her office and it was out of her hands
For seven months this went on I was blindsided. I was not even given the chance to pay my arrears it went from $7.900 which I was willing to pay to now 16,000 My wife was a major cause to this but she has only a grade 9 education and really isn’t competent to sighing anything and I didn’t want her on this mortgage in the first place. I have had the sheriff at my house, I was almost evicted at moments notice The sherrif was a nice guy and gave me a break, my locks were almost changed I have my son and daughter in law living here and she is barring a child I was told by a paralegal to pay the bill but Pay it in protest I feel I was taken advantage of and most certainly I was never given a chance or even notified that there was even a problem in the first place I didn’t even as much as get a call or was contacted of anyway that something was wrong but instead let it go for seven months and underhanded tried to steal my house from under me, Since all of these happenings I have been a nervous wreck, I cant sleep, and my family almost dissolved and I Honestly feel I was wrongly abused and taken advantage of by The Scotia Bank I’m willing to pay my arrears but not all of these fees as it never should have proceeded this far anyway. If I were notified of this I would have surely corrected the problem I put ninety thousand dollars down on my home and probably thirty grand into it you don’t know what it is like to have a sheriff at your door saying grab what you can and get out we are changing the locks when I have 6 people living here I including a mother to be and a son with a disability and what I have been put through is clearly unjustified. I found a new lender but it was not easy and guess what my wife is not on the mortgage but it cost me large now I want to take action it would be a good TV show. My 14 yr old Son with turrets syndrome and ADHD was outside just in his boxers threatening to kill the sheriff and my daughter in law didn’t need the stress carrying a child I am going after these crooks and I stand by everything I say I should have been notified the first month something was wrong as mentioned above I will write to anyone or tell my story to everyone they didn’t even give me a chance Some greedy banker wanted my house,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, well you didn’t get it !!!!!


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
That's quite a horror story, catfish. I hope you are able to get some redress from the bank, although it would probably cost you thousands in legal fees to do so.

The reason your wife had to go on the mortgage (assuming she is not a joint owner on the title of the property) is the Family Law Act of Ontario (you are in Ontario, no?). Your wife has certain rights and interests in respect to the "matrimonial home" and her concurrence is required before you can legally encumber the property with a mortgage.

The notice you got in June was probably from the Sheriff's office. Prior to that notice being delivered, the bank would have to serve you, your wife, your son, and anybody else with an interest in the mortgage or the house personally or by registered mail (they almost always use registered mail) with a notice telling you what the arrears are alleged to be, and giving you about 35 days to pay up. They have to be able to prove to the court later that they have served each person with that notice.

They also have to start a lawsuit against you and the other mortgagors, claiming the amount of the arrears, and giving you 20 days to file a defence to the claim. Again, they have to serve this claim on each of you personally before the 20-day clock starts to run. If you fail to file a defence, then they can get a judgment against you from the court for the amount they claim you owe (the full outstanding balance of the mortgage) and stating further that if you do not pay they can take possession of the house.

Then they have to serve you with a notice demanding that you either pay or give up possession of the house and ONLY AFTER THAT can they go to the Sheriff to get the eviction notice that you were served with in June.

So you were supposed to have plenty of notice (at least three notices) before you got the 10-day notice from the sheriff in June. Likewise your wife and son were supposed to get at least three notices. That's why the Bank sends someone to do an "occupancy check" (not an "occupancy agreement") because they have to ascertain who is living in the house and make sure everybody gets notice of what's happening before an eviction can be made.

So either you all missed getting served with several notices or the proper procedures weren't followed by the bank. You could get your paralegal to check the court office to examine the file and see whether all the documentation is in order.


catfish
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2008
Thanks for the information if this is true what you are telling me then the proceedure was not followed correctley
I put ninety thousand dollars down on my home and probably have thirty grand into it you don’t know what it is like to have a sheriff at your door saying grab what you can and get out we are changing the locks when I have 6 people living here including a mother to be and a son with a disability this is my home I love and cherish and I cried I didn’t know what to do I felt invaded and what I experienced is clearly unjustified. I want to take action My 14 yr old Son with turrets syndrome and ADHD was outside in his boxers yelling at the sheriff and my daughter in law didn’t need the stress carrying a child I was close to having a heart attack now I want to go after these crooks and I stand by everything I say I should have been notified the first month something was wrong I will write to everyone or tell my story to anyone they didn’t even give me a chance Some greedy banker wanted my house and played the waiting game to get it. My whole summer went on as my family suffered heartache and emotional stress levels I called the banks lawyers office trying to straighten this out but was only threatened now my bill was up to 16,000 in fees just today I finally have a new lender my Mortgage was 90,00
Is now 120,000 with fees I want something Done about this I spent grueling stress filled hours trying to save my home and now that I have I want everyone to know how devious and well thought of a plan this was. Most people would probably give up and simply leave but I stood my ground now I want to try and get my money back I was taken for a ride and almost left with nothing in return Thanks Scotia Bank

vajraman
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2009

I would advise ALL small businesses to stay far way from Scotia Bank. 

One month ago we opened an account there and provided full documentation on the nature of our consulting business. 

In spite of this they continue to HOLD each and every incoming wire until we produce a contract with the client! 

Unbelievable and completely impossible to do business running to the bank every time we get a wire. 

Not only that but the last time they just arbitrarily reversed four wires without waiting for us to bring in documentation on them. 

Needless to say we are canning this account, registering a complaint with the manager, the bank's ombudsman, and the president's office. 

In 34 years of doing business I have never worked with a more provincial and backward bank. 

This bank will go the way of GM and Chrysler. Why? They are not keeping up with the times. On top of the above issues the bank tellers did NOT know how to send a darn wire! That was the FIRST red flag. 

Personally, avoid this bank at all costs. There are much more reasonable banks in Canada to deal with. BOM is not one of them!

CIBC, TD, and HSBC all have good reputations and I have had good experiences with them. 

Frown


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Aside from one bank credit card which I don't use often and always pay in full when I do use it, I don't deal with banks at all - since 1977 I've done all my banking through credit unions and caisse populaires. My CMHC mortgage and all my monthly bills are handled by my local caisse pop.


KeyStone
Offline
Joined: Apr 23 2008

The truth of the matter is that banks and finance companies do this as routine practice.

They do everything they can to get you to take the insurance that isn't mandatory, including implying that it is.
The only legal remedy that the government has brought in, is some small print on the contract that says that it isn't mandatorty.

Of course, when you have a twenty-page document, and you have a one-hour appointment, there is a pretty good chance you aren't going to read everything. I've seen it from the inside and complained to my MP (leader of the NDP at the time) - and she did nothing as far as I know. This deceptive practice has been going on for many years, and no one in any position of power has any intention of changing the practice.


Polly B
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2004

vajraman wrote:

I would advise ALL small businesses to stay far way from Scotia Bank. 

One month ago we opened an account there and provided full documentation on the nature of our consulting business. 

 

As would I!   One of the companies I keep books for had some blank cheques stolen.  These cheques were never cashed, but the enterprising thief printed up his own cheques,  made them out to friends, signed them and cashed them at the big banks.

After about 15,000 was cleared, the bank noticed the problem.  One, they weren't our cheques.  Two, our cheques were dual sig, these were single.  Three, the one signature on these cheques wasn't anyone from our firm.  Four, they were all the same cheque number.

What a pain.  We were told that this happens because BNS only actually checks about 2% of the cheques cleared.  So why are we told to buy watermarked security cheques with shiny blobs and dual signers??  Better yet, we were then told that because this had happened we had to close this account and open another.  They had to freeze our current chequing account in case any more fraudulent cheques were out there.  The freeze didn't work out so well, I had to call and unfreeze in order to have my payments and payroll processed (takes a while to switch a business account) - and the bank kept buggering up the timing and "bouncing" my payments.  There were NEVER insufficient funds, it was simply a matter of the local branch not lifting the freeze in time for the main bank to allow the payments.

Result?  BNS had to return the funds from the fraudulent cheques.  They then charged us over 1,000 in NSF fees for the privilege of having everything bounce out hours after I was told they were cleared and okay. 

End result.  Never never never recommend BNS for anything.


Bizzle Sundizzle
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2010

I got a really good one.  Scotia Bank is trying to frack my family out of their new business.  We are currently trying to get a loan to buy a new home/business out along the highway.  Wow I just realized something bad.  Here's how it goes.

We met a nice old man who is trying to sell his business along the highway.  Now that my family has tried to get a loan from scotia bank they have denied us.  They know what we want to buy and suddenly there is a man from a big city there taking lots of pictures.  Guess what?  I'm quite sure he is from Scotia Bank.  Now I believe that those greedy frackers are going to try to buy this place now that they know about it.  The original price was Over a million but since I live at the End Of The Line.  No one has come to buy it from him.  In the town which I live there is a 2x - 5x markup price on everything in the store.  Suddenly everything is up close to or near the 5X markup price.  Now I am sure that my family has made a grave mistake in telling Scotia Bank about this property because it is out the highway and cheap.  Not over the original price (over a million)  it is 3x cheaper.  Now we have to get a loan from some of those greedy frackers and it's going to cost us over a million and take 10+ - 20+  years to pay it back.  Since I have quit using Drugs and Drinking I have decided to use that wasted money to make life better. One third or more of all my money will now go to my parents.  Less than one forth goes to buying and re-selling stuff from eBay in town here.  The rest is so that I can live a poor man's life under 120pounds in one room....

I am going to stop using Scotia Bank to deposit & cash my checks.  But now I don't know which bank I should use.  My choices are TD Canada, Royal Bank, BMO (bank of Montreal), Northern Savings Credit Union, CIBC, and RBC

I am quite frustrated with this.  Right now I feel like we are going to lose our potential for a nice home and new business.  I wish we didn't have to go through Crooked Real Estate Companies & Banks.  Their Motto Should Be "Greed Is All We Need" 

I Would like to know if.  Anyone has a good suggestion for me?  I'm considering Credit Union or TD Canada.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments