Scotiabank Fraud

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 [url=http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/eng/default.asp]Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)[/url] 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' [url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/1110906574959_106314... segment asking them to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank; and to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Goldhawk]Dale Goldhawk[/url] of CFRB radio asking HIM to feature your case, and copy Scotiabank. Write to CBC's [url=http://Marketplace]Marketplace[/url] , 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 ]

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.

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?

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*.

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:
[b]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.[/b]

---

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 [url=http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1989/spring/67/]this article[/url] 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 ]

Fair enough.

Search under the FCAC website under tied selling.

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 ]

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.

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. 

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.