Well I'm hard of hearing. My bank insisted on telephoning me on numerous occasions despite being told of this and being asked to stop. As a result of this I raised a complain against them using the complaint procedure.

The first letter I received in response to this, an acknowledgement finished with the line "if you need to speak to someone in the meantime, please call us on the above number." I'm hard of hearing and supposed to do this how? I went into the branch to complain further and they apologised and told me I'd have to come into the branch. Not sure how this is equal provision of services???

Second letter from the bank apologising for not dealing with my complaint in a timely fashion again mentioned telephoning them quoting the number at the top of the page, or alternatively writing to them (which would take days to be read).

Finally I received a call which left a message on my voicemail. I couldn't hear this. As it happens I was visiting my parents so my father listened to it later and then it turned out it was the bank. I went into the branch near my parents who were unable to tell me what the call was about. They did however put a note next to my account for me to NOT be called.

The following day I received another call from the bank leaving a voicemail. I was still with my parents so my dad ended up calling them, which given I'm a 36 year old male is a humiliating thing to have happen. It turned out it was the complaint department wanting to speak to me on the phone about my complaint of being hard of hearing and unable to speak on the phone. They insisted on speaking to me, and my father kept telling them how stupid they were.

In the end they suggested that they ring his landline as I would be able to understand them on that phone. They then spoke to my father more, insisting over and over again to speak to me as it was the only way to handle my complaint. After ten minutes of this my father finally persuaded them to send me a letter instead.

This letter which I have offers me £50 compensation and suggests I pay for a typetalk system (although typetalk lacks full access). At the bottom of the letter it says "I will be very pleased if you call me personally on one of the telephone numbers followed by my identity code... "

I can do this how. I am hard of hearing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So anyway I now intend to begin proceedings against my bank for breaching the laws with regards to disabilities and equality. Beyond any advice people can offer (I'm fully up to speed on the law but would welcome experiences people have), my main question is pretty simple - just what sort of level of damages should I claim. Is there any case law someone can point me to on this?

It goes without saying it's completely unacceptable to insist a hard of hearing person uses a telephone, which the bank has done throughout my complaint and this is what I will be taking them to court over.

Just ACouple Of Quick Question, How Would You Like Them To Contact YoU. You Seem Against Calling In The Bank, Writing Or A Text Phone So What Solution Would You Like?

What Damages Have You Suffered Aa Result Of This?

Calling in at the bank costs me money. Obviously I do this, I even mention how I do it twice in my post. You read my post didn't you? Just because of the complaints thing I had to call into the bank twice. Do you have any idea what it's like to be hard of hearing, to have sales drones leave me messages on my answer phone that don't say what they are about, for me to get someone else to listen to them, and then have to go into the bank to find out it's a marketing call! That this then continues when I've told them over and over to stop. That it even continues after I make a formal complaint about it. That they even write me a letter saying that I don't reply to their voice mails so maybe I could call them when I've told them to 1) stop calling me and 2) I can't hear anyway.

Is it not obvious what damages I have suffered? Apart from being completely humiliated by their entire complaint procedure and my complaint not being resolved because I can't telephone them!!!!!!!!!! I said they could email me, text me, use online chat, whatsapp, write to me, anything except a telephone. The bank amusingly says that they cannot use online chat because it's insecure, and yet when I log into my share dealing account with the same bank there's online chat. It's insecure for my personal account, but not for my share dealing account which I have 70 grand in.

The law on this is very clear, I would post a link but this website won't let me.

They are required to give me equal access to services. Calling someone you know cannot hear and demanding to speak to them provides me with equal access how? It's crass and offensive. Sending someone a letter complaining that they cannot hear and asking them to call you is insensitive.

What I am trying to do is discover the level of damages to claim for this rather upsetting episode. My case will deal exclusively with their complaints procedure. The people in the branch are actually unable to deal with the complaint, it has to be done with their customer service drones who insist on speaking to me with a telephone.

Example -

Jill Hipson, of Berkhamstead in Hertfordshire, was distressed and embarrassed by the way Barclays treated her when she tried to buy a car. Profoundly deaf, Mrs Hipson has banked with Barclays for 30 years, and the bank is well aware of her disability. She visited a branch a few days before buying a car at her local garage to warn the bank that she was going to make a big transaction. She was reassured that she would not face any problems. However, when she came to pay for the car the bank called the garage owner to say that Mrs Hipson must authorise the transaction over the phone. As she was unable to do so, the garage owner was forced to drive Mrs Hipson to the nearest Barclays branch to authorise it in person.

 

She says: ‘I was with my husband at the time of the purchase, but Barclays refused to let him speak to them to confirm that I was indeed deaf and was unable to authorise the transaction over the phone. He was told the Data Protection Act prevented him speaking on my behalf. The Honda salesman showed more loyalty as a customer of five minutes, than Barclays whom I have banked with for many years.’

 

Barclays offered Mrs Hipson compensation of £250 by way of an apology, £100 of which is to buy a mobile text relay phone. However, Mrs Hipson has been unable to track down the technology and believes that if no longer exists.

and

Chris Fry, a managing partner of Unity Law, a practice specialising in disability discrimination, said: ‘Banks are bound by the provisions of section 29 of the Equality Act. Where a bank’s arrangements, including telephone verification of identity, or the giving of instructions, create a substantial disadvantage for disabled customers, it triggers a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments. Banks must do enough to avoid the disadvantage altogether or to find another way to provide the service.’

 

He added: ‘The policy behind the Act is not a minimalist one of grudgingly make some provision, but to provide a service as close as possible to that enjoyed by non-disabled customers.’

 

A typical case for ‘injury to feelings’ under the Equality Act, where someone feels they were treated unfavourably compared to an able bodied customer because of their disability, could result in compensation of as much as £6,000 not counting legal costs. Courts can also order banks to change their practices, at significant cost.

I Was Only Trying To Clarify The Points You Were Claiming DamadgeAnd What You Expected The Bank To Do. Obviously To Advise Correctly I Need To Ensure I've Understood All CorrectlGiven The Tone Of Your Reply It's Hardly Surprising You fail To make pRogress With Your Complaint, As Ii Too Will Now Choose To offer No Further Advice

Can I suggest you don't jump to conclusions about people, namely that I seem against calling in at the bank or writing, particularly when they specifically mention doing so in their post!

Ive read this and it seems you are making a big fuss about nothing,they have given you several ways of communicating with them,you seem to be just coming across as very belligerent,Ive had various bank accounts over the last 35 years and Ive never had to deal with any bank through phonecalls etc,they all have email/texting services you can use,you seem to come across as someone that wants pandering to in a fashion thats unjustifiable!

So let's see... I complain about getting phone calls and they keep calling me despite me objecting to this. They then insist on handling my complaint over the phone and argue with my father I should talk to them over the phone even though he says I cannot due to my hearing. They have refused to use both email and texting - I have a letter from them saying this. I am then called belligerent! Just because your experiences say this, it doesn't mean they apply to everyone else. My complaint about the continuing phone calls is unresolved specifically because I cannot talk to them over the phone. Do you ever have a bank call up and insist on talking to you about your hearing problem and refuse to deal with you by any other means because it's insecure? Their complaint response even says that although they have updated their records I can still expect automated calls from them!!!!!!!!

If this bank is that bad.......why dont you close the account!,its easy,thats what anyone else would do,dont give them your business! somewhere along the line anybody else would have told them to either email you or text you,tell them if they cant do that your going somewhere else,sorted.

Why do they have a phone number for you if you can't use the phone?

They have a mobile number... I have asked them on numerous occasions to stop calling. I am fine with them texting me or emailing me. I have NEVER used telephone banking, I use online banking. I do not have a land line.

I informed them on the 6th of June not to telephone me because of my hearing, I then received two calls in the next two weeks. I went into the branch and complained about this. The branch said there was nothing they could do. I was then phoned the next day on the 23rd of June. I was then phoned again on the 6th of September.I made a formal complaint immediately after that, and I was telephoned again on the 17th of September. They had responded to my complaint the previous day by letter saying they would deal with it. The letter they sent me about my complaint asked me to call them, it is not a minicom number. I went into the branch to ask about this and the people in the branch said that as I can't use a phone they'd deal with my complaint in person if I needed anything. Fair enough. I then started to get voicemails about the complaint despite having mentioned in my complaint I cannot hear voicemails. I went into the bank about the first one and they apologised, but couldn't tell me what the voicemail was about. They put a note on my account not to call me which conflicts with what the people in the other branch told me - that they could do nothing to stop the calls. I received another voicemail the next day. It turned out this was the complaints people who my dad called (just as well I was visiting my parents). He proceeded to have two arguments with them whilst they demanded to speak to me over the phone, ignored what he said about me not being able to hear and insisted.

Their written response to my complaint includes that they leave voicemails because they'd be discriminating against people who can't hear if they didn't because some people may have minicoms. My understanding is that minicoms cannot translate voicemails and despite referring me to the RNID it appears there is nothing that they have that can do so. They justified not using email because it was insecure, said the same about texting.

If this bank is that bad.......why dont you close the account!,its easy,thats what anyone else would do,dont give them your business! somewhere along the line anybody else would have told them to either email you or text you,tell them if they cant do that your going somewhere else,sorted.

Which doesn't change the fact that they had an argument with my father demanding I speak to them about my complaint over the phone. This is what my case against them concerns. It is rather crass of them to say the least. My complaint was simply to get them to stop calling me which is all I want - no more phone calls. Email, post or text is fine.

As for closing my account it's rather more complex. I have two savings accounts, a current account, a share dealing account, a spread betting account, and a credit card. Closing my accounts, although voting with my feet, doesn't change the atrocious way they handled my complaint, namely arguing with my father twice over the phone demanding that I speak to them verbally despite knowing I cannot. This was incredibly humiliating. I suspect I will have to change my current account because they have changed how transfers are made because when setting up a new transfer using online banking they now have an automated voice calling system which I obviously cannot use... and their letter is clear that they intend on keeping this system despite its rather questionable legal status.

Ironically, apparently the reason they like calling so much is to make sure I am happy with them due to having reasonable sums of money invested with them! Apparently they've started to decide to care about their wealthier customers.

Ill say it again,close your accounts with them and chalk it down to experience,banks are in the service industry,theres plenty of banks out there would love you to open an account with them,why give yourself the stress?

Because I want change... why should I be the victim of discrimination? The reason this sort of thing happens is BECAUSE people think they can just walk with their feet. What are we supposed to do? Just change bank again and again when they treat us badly because we can't hear properly? This is the same argument David Cameron uses with utilities - if you don't like it change, ignoring the fact they are a cartel and all as bad as each other.

Allen V Royal Bank of Scotland would be a good example here. RBS argued he could just change branch... the court ruled that RBS had to actually approach it with "zeal", not simply do what they thought was OK and then expect the customer to fit itself to their changes. The judge even called their behaviour "a social evil". The law has been structured here very clearly so that the financial penalties firms face for breaching it act as a serious disincentive from doing things this way. It's up to us when we get treated badly to bring those companies to account.

Clearly you don't know me. As a photographer I have won 63 cases for copyright infringement in a row against companies, some of which are FTSE firms. I don't believe in letting people take advantage of me. I have no issue in taking any company to court, I know pre action protocols and the civil procedure rules inside out.

I simply wanted to know about the quantum of damages that people would suggest. I have seen what to claim between but there's so little case law on this when it comes to damages for the sheer embarrassment the bank put me through. I know the minimum to claim, and the maximum and as such am inclined to claim the maximum and then wait for the Part 36 Offer which will be the minimum. Once I have skinned them financially over their complaints system, I plan on trying to actually force them to remove the telephone automation they still use and adopt alternative methods.

By the way, I was one of the first people to sue his bank for damages over the fees thing back in 2005 before this website ever existed. I remember when it was created and still have the emails from Marc on that topic. Funny how this place grew into a monster.

Schweppes, here is an article from Action on Hearing ( Loss) - 2012

 

This is a transcript of an article originally published in The Times on Tuesday 21 February by Laura Whateley.

 

Banks are routinely discriminating against customers with hearing loss by failing to provide equal access to services, a Times investigation has found. Deaf customers report being regularly inconvenienced and humiliated by banks’ indifference to their hearing loss and the insistence that security measures are carried out by telephone. The Times has received a number of complaints from deaf people about unfair treatment. These include broken hearing aid loops systems, poorly trained and rude staff, a lack of understanding about how text phones work and an over-reliance on spoken answers to security questions. In some cases this has left people stranded overseas without money because their bank has blocked their card.

 

While many banks provide online messaging services, deaf customers complain that their messages frequently go unanswered, or that banks request them to ‘call in’ to discuss an urgent issue, leaving them with no choice but to find time to visit their nearest branch. The increasing trend for banks to replace counter staff with machines and telephone banking makes deaf customers’ lives even more difficult.

 

 

Read more : http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/news-and-events/all-regions/press-releases/banks-face-massive-payouts-to-deaf-customers.aspx

Thanks. Does anyone have any more... the more background the better.

Is the initial complaint in a format the bank can't 'lose' if it chooses to?

Which bank is this?

I find it disgusting that a mainstream service provider cannot or will not adjust its service for those hampered by any disability. FFS, how much can it cost it to amend it's template responses for those that are hard of hearing.

What do you mean, is the initial complaint in a format the bank can't "lose"? Given they called me and I have complained over the phone about it when called and yet the calls continued, gone into two different branches on three occasions to complain in person, and complained in writing and the calls continued they would lose this complaint too. The relevant case would perhaps be Waring v D.C.W Private Hire Cullingworth Taxis.

Waring used a minicom. He called the local taxi firm. The taxi firm rejected his call. Waring visited their office and showed them how to work the system. Waring made another call. The call was rejected. He again visited their office and showed them how to work the system. The third time Waring made a call it was again rejected. They failed on three occasions to make reasonable adjustments, so he sued them and won. Sadly I can't find the case of Balii.

http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/news/news.aspx?newsid=432

My initial complaint has been passed to both the Disability Rights Commission and the Banking Ombudsman. It will be interesting to compare the responses.

You're right about the form letters too. They use words like "speak" and the justification of this is incredibly that they would be discriminating against those who are hard of hearing if they did not do so! For the hard of hearing it would surely be more appropriate to include a phrase such as "or typetalk to us on a minicom at 0800 800 800".

Another nice touch is how the official response to my complaint starts with the letter writer saying she has the same problems and is frustrated with it too. Is she actually admitting she's hard of hearing and is being discriminated against by the Halifax who she banks with???

In my experience financial institutions tend to lose complaints when sued, and choose to lose data when suited to its defence. Given the nature of complaint I assume it was written correspondence to a recognised service address?

Not questioning your ability to pursue this but even the best come up against counsel attempting to muddy the waters.

The Allen appeal did not interfere with first instance damages of £6500.00 although it would seem prudent to check for any recently appealed cases which could alter your expectations.

Mike I would not expect this to go to court, it's fairly horrible for them. Disability rights stuff goes to mediation first of all if both parties agree. I have a fantastic paper trail and I very helpfully have replies for everything from them too. I even have recordings of the voice mails they left. When visiting the banks in person I had the sense to tag my location using my mobile phone on facebook so I can show I visited then. I have learned this from photography where I have to prove sometimes I was at the place I was at on the day the photograph was taken. The photo matches the geotagging...

In the case of the bank speaking to my father, there were several other people in the room at the same time and everyone stood there with their mouths open as my father actually argued with them about my inability to use a telephone! No one could hear the other side of the conversation but over and over again my father said "how can he come to the phone and talk to you when he cannot hear?????????" It's these two conversations that will be the starring pieces.

They actually called my parents land line, after my dad spoke to them via my mobile, having said something to him along the lines that perhaps I would be able to hear better on a land line. And maybe the guy in the wheel chair who can't walk up those winding stairs can walk up a straight set!!! Maybe a blind man can't watch colour TV but can watch black and white. Stupid stupid stupid and so incredibly embarrassing to experience. They actually made me feel disabled which is what I resent the most.

I have a good job, a nice business, a beautiful fiancee, I lip read and lead a pretty normal life. Most people are unaware of my hearing problem because I lip read well. I cannot however listen to the radio so I will never know what the fuss is about Terry Wogan, I use subtitles on the TV, and phone calls are a big no-no. When I do TV interviews for my work I cannot do live, but broadcasters are always accommodating and do pre-record. I've even had the Press Association send a van to where I live with an outside broadcast unit because I couldn't do an interview over the phone which must have cost them. People and companies are usually wonderful and everyone who needs to know has been informed so no one ever telephones and everyone can bear in mind how things are for me. Everyone that is except the bank. This woman who dealt with my complaint though treated me as no one has ever treated me before in my entire life except for when I was at school, and despite being deaf the school insisted on me doing the French listening exam of a pre-recorded tape I could not hear. That was 1992 and legal. Now it is not.

Hi,

I totally understand your issues with the bank. Whilst I'm not deaf I have a disability which presents neurological issues meaning I am unable to talk to banks etc for the majority of my time, especially incoming calls. Outgoing calls cause too much stress which agitate my disabity, along with a very short term memory and inability to hold a meaningful telephone conversion.

Slightly different to your situation I am in debt. I used to have a great job which paid well, which also included living life on CCs etc. Then I became unexpectedly disabled. I am unable to meet contractual obligations to my debts and manage token payments to the ones I can. I am not avoiding payments, I just want to communicate in writing.

I have written various letters, OFT - in writing only, DPA please remove all telephone numbers, EQ Act 2010 - reasonable adjustment to contact in writing only.

Yet they still call. They still send letters for me to call them. They ignore all requests not to call. They don't even respond to 'signed for' formal requests under the EQ Act 2010!

I am unable to tolerate the disruption of constant telephone calls, which is why I have a true call unit, which blocks telephone numbers. However I am subjected to some each time a new DCA is assigned before I am able to block.

I have about 5 debts in this situation and most recently I am at a loss as what to do. I too have thought about court action, but the majority of these issues started more than 6 months ago with prevents me from taking action. It's been over 10 months trying to write numerous letters to request they stop calling.

I wish you well in your court case, and I am only sorry I can't give advice on what size of damages you should claim. Please do keep this thread updated as I am following with interest.

Me_too

Sorry to hear about your problems. Surely, just because they started over six months ago it doesn't matter - it's whether it's continuing now?

I wonder why the six month limit applies though, standard time for bringing cases within the statute of limitation is 6 years. In many cases we are required to use the complaints system of the industry in question first as the English legal system requires you to have made efforts to settle etc etc. If you don't then you could be hit with costs even if you won thus you do the bank complaint system first, then complain to the ombudsman, by which time the 6 months could actually have elapsed and they are unactionable.

Metoo, you have 6 months from the date of the Company's final response letter to take your complaint to the ombudsman.

I presume from the post you intend to make a claim under Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010. Your claim should be for "injured feelings". As for the relevant bands of compensation, look up the following cases:

Vento v Chief Constable - established the "Vento bands" for injured feelings

Purves v Joydisc - established the minimum level of damages for injured feelings

Da'bell v NSPCC - Uprating the "Vento bands" for inflation"

Hops this helps

Thanks Bambert... Vento bands is what I was after!

Interesting to see just how much their offer of compensation, a whole £50, is below the legal minimum.

Not a problem. Feel free to post back to this thread with your draft letter of claim for my comments. This is an area of some knowledge for me.

Thanks Bambert. The Purves one is gold dust. In my original complaint the bank admit that their behaviour has upset me, and yet offer me only £50 compensation! The law it seems is quite clear on the matter, if they've upset me (which they admit in writing) they should offer appropriate damages. Seems they owe me at least £681... and then for their stupid complaints team rather more. It's interesting that the bank simply ignores the legal guidance on the matter. Is it standard practise they do this I wonder?

Anyway, here's a quote on from the end of the complaint citing some of the laws

You will be aware no doubt of Waring v D.C.W Private Hire Cullingworth Taxis (2009). In this case Waring had made the taxi firm aware of his condition on two previous occasions, that is he was deaf. They failed to make reasonable adjustments. Upon the third such incident he took them to court and won. The judge took the unusual step of awarding a greater level of damages than the sum claimed and said that the three incidents made up one serious incident.

 

Your firm has been notified on many more occasions than this that I suffer from hearing loss, and your complaints team failed to take this into account. Even after speaking to my father in one conversation, his insistence it was inappropriate to speak to me on the telephone was still ignored and you telephoned again shortly after with the desire you speak to me.

 

Further to this I note you have suggested that I purchase a Typetalk system in your written response to my complaint. You are required to bear the cost of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act and inter alia Allen V Royal Bank of Scotland Ltd (2009). Your continued failure to do so is a clear breach of the law.

 

Please be aware that an inappropriate offer of compensation will be rejected. You will already be aware of what Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 allows for with regards to injured feelings, but as a guide this is included here for the avoidance of doubt.

 

Purves v Joydisc (2003) established that discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services should be awarded damages on the same basis as employment tribunal cases. The case set this level at the minimum of £750.00.

 

The so-called Vento Bands established in the seminal case of Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2002) set the lower band at £500 to £5,000 for less serious cases.

 

Da'bell v NSPCC (2009) increased the Vento Bands to match inflation. The lowest band was uprated to £600 to £6,000. Today this figure is £681.36 to £6813.60.

 

Should my complaint not be resolved in a reasonable manner, I shall have no choice but to begin litigation.