Hello from Team OCBC

[sohguanh]

They definitely set a precedent to other banks that not to use cheap/free media/social media to advertise their products and services.

Also a precedent to learn is to have a complete and effective/fast response hotline.

Never expect using robot to fix urgent issues and intelligent enough to handle unexpected scam.

Indeed it is to set the mark higher for all the banks. But if customers have not woken up to be more cautious so whatever all the banks are doing will still come to nothing as I say previously the entire equation involve customer as one of the participants. If customer is the weakest link then no matter how "secure" the bank secure their end there will still be loopholes for scam syndicate to exploit.

Personally I think the customer education is not strong enough. OCBC has shown to customers don't worry get scammed you are assured of full reimbursement. If I customer shiok ah lose monies can take back 100% I lost so why I need to be extra cautious in future? Let banks worry about the security on their end. To me I give them monies earn they better do a good job. And this is why in my earlier post in scam I would prefer a co-payment scheme so customer also bear some loss to make them learn this painful lesson else they will never learn.

 

[Peanut15]

Actually if you are using paynow, can avoid using the bank app and use Google pay app instead which is much faster.
But if you're are a non android user then you payment options are pretty much restricted to bank apps only.

ios also can use gPay /grab to use payNow

 

[OCBC Bank]

Since this promo ends on 15th, final week is just 2 days (Mon & Tues)? Just to clarify, the same person would be counted as unique again after every sunday?

Hi lupster,

Yes, you are correct.

Unique recipient is counted per week, starting from Monday, and ending on Sunday.

For eg.
If you have transferred to A on Sunday (13 Feb), it will count as a unique transaction for the week of Monday (7 Feb) to Sunday (13 Feb).

When you transfer again to A on Monday (14 Feb), it will count for the week of Monday (14 Feb) to Tuesday (15 Feb) - end of promotion period.

^DG

 

[BBCWatcher]

Actually such are to protect the provider more than the customer.

That's correct, but that's not sustainable, at least not in a competitive banking market. When you only care about yourself and not your customers, you're not going to keep your customers.

And this is why in my earlier post in scam I would prefer a co-payment scheme so customer also bear some loss to make them learn this painful lesson else they will never learn.

Well, they could try that, but...it's a competitive market, or at least it's getting more competitive. There are also legal and regulatory requirements, and the regulator might be interested now in tightening those requirements.

At the very least unless and until your own house (the bank) is in order from a security point of view, you can hardly blame your customers. If for example a customer's bank account is vulnerable to mere SIM hijacking, and all the money can be drained within a minute because you (the bank) didn't have reasonable security controls in place (moving the digital token is instantaneous, for example), why should the customer be held responsible? You (the bank) screwed up! You didn't meet even basic standards of modern banking security in 2022 (or even 2012). What else is a bank for, after all? If the bank doesn't do at least its part to safeguard our money, then we might as well stuff it under a mattress. When several millions of dollars (over S$10M) are grabbed by thieves within just a few days, as seems to be the press reporting, it's just not credible to blame your customers. That's a systemic, institutional security failure.

If and when the bank treats its customers like genuine security partners, and steps up its own game to be world class, THEN we might talk about these issues of apportioning "blame." But if the bank won't even lock the bank vault, metaphorically or actually speaking, then customers certainly shouldn't be responsible for 10% (or whatever) when the robbers enter the vault and grab the money.

 

[BBCWatcher]

What does it mean to treat your customers as genuine security partners? It means to understand them, and to keep understanding them and their behaviors as they evolve. It means encouraging good security practices consistent with world class banks in 2022+. And if you (the bank) don't practice even basic security — if you teach your own customers effectively to trust anyone who calls and says "Hello, I'm from OCBC, I'm now going to ask some 'verification questions'" because that's how you've been running your bank for years for your "convenience" — then you really have big problems to solve and are light years away from apportioning any "blame" to your customers.

Like I said, I'm glad the MAS is taking a fresh look at this class of problems, although I hope the MAS does so in a thoughtful way and really looks at global best practices and how far Singapore has to go. We're supposed to be a world class financial centre, and I just don't see it yet — not in this dimension anyway.

 

[zzTiny]

These banks and finance firms are always slowest in everything except in getting money. Is not a wonder people call them bloodsuckers and even hated since its existence. Unfortunately, they are necessary for a society to grow.

The only way to stop this is to only allow change of transfer limit at outlets. Or you know...physical tokens. Tough and inconvenient.

 

[sohguanh]

These banks and finance firms are always slowest in everything except in getting money. Is not a wonder people call them bloodsuckers and even hated since its existence. Unfortunately, they are necessary for a society to grow.

The only way to stop this is to only allow change of transfer limit at outlets. Or you know...physical tokens. Tough and inconvenient.

There exists ppl like bbc who blame the bank for their poor security so customer loss is to be absorbed by the bank conveniently absolving customer of any blame.

As you said banks are necessary for a society to grow we cannot escape. What we can do is to diversify our monies across various banks. Keeping track is a hassle like you say physical token is inconvenient.

Pull all monies out of OCBC means you less one bank to diversify. How can one be sure the same cannot happen to other banks in future? You going to close that bank account also? One by one until zero banks you can put monies in? Salary credit to what bank then?

 

[cscs3]

Indeed it is to set the mark higher for all the banks. But if customers have not woken up to be more cautious so whatever all the banks are doing will still come to nothing as I say previously the entire equation involve customer as one of the participants. If customer is the weakest link then no matter how "secure" the bank secure their end there will still be loopholes for scam syndicate to exploit.

Personally I think the customer education is not strong enough. OCBC has shown to customers don't worry get scammed you are assured of full reimbursement. If I customer shiok ah lose monies can take back 100% I lost so why I need to be extra cautious in future? Let banks worry about the security on their end. To me I give them monies earn they better do a good job. And this is why in my earlier post in scam I would prefer a co-payment scheme so customer also bear some loss to make them learn this painful lesson else they will never learn.

This type of scam is always learnt by experience. As you never know what is next.

 

[CrashWire]

What happened is ocbc has set a precedent. It means if the same scam is to happen to other local banks, customers trained to be fully reimbursed. This mean as customer may think why should I learn to take extra protection since kena will get back lost monies?

MAS had to come out and say that this isn't the case:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/bus...nt-digital-banking-security-ocbc-scam-2479146

 

[reddevil0728]

What happened is ocbc has set a precedent. It means if the same scam is to happen to other local banks, customers trained to be fully reimbursed. This mean as customer may think why should I learn to take extra protection since kena will get back lost monies?

That is why personally for me the ocbc incident should be a co-payment scheme. This ensures customer feel the pain and really learn to be extra careful in future. The ratio can be adjusted but key is to let customer feel the pain and really learn a painful lesson else it will not stick into their mindset.

I thought they have made it quite clear it wouldn’t be a precedent?

 

[sohguanh]

I thought they have made it quite clear it wouldn’t be a precedent?

What I am saying is OCBC set the precedent later if other banks kena same scam as OCBC feel pressured to do full reimbursement since OCBC do that already.

 

[reddevil0728]

What I am saying is OCBC set the precedent later if other banks kena same scam as OCBC feel pressured to do full reimbursement since OCBC do that already.

I think MAS came out to say it wouldn’t be and they gonna publish a framework to determine how blame should be apportioned, would prevent that from happening

 

[Tokieda]

Will you be updating the copyright year footer in your webpage to 2022? it's still showing 2021.

 

[OCBC Bank]

@OCBC Bank, why must you make my life difficult again and again just because you had to do goodwill payout? I was about to pay for my food with PayAnyone app and it decided to ask for access code and pin all over again. I already did the setup last time round. I don’t want to key in those because there were people behind me. Seriously, what’s wrong with your IT guys?! The app was working with me all along until you guys decided to do unnecessary things to hamper Internet transactions through your apps.

Hi there,

This is part of the tightened security measures introduced. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused, and will share the feedback, thank you.

^XF

 

[cscs3]

I thought they have made it quite clear it wouldn’t be a precedent?

Technically, bank has no responsibility to compensate. In practical, bank need a systematic way to prevent multiple transactions in short time frame. Many banks has these build into their system. If bank missed this they cannot escape for liability, may be not 100% but part of it.

Especially, added with poor response from their call center. Clearly the lost can be minimised if call center live up to what it should be.

 

[cscs3]

Hi there,

This is part of the tightened security measures introduced. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused, and will share the feedback, thank you.

^XF

Your business analyst need to relook into these security measurement.
Certainly, if this is look into from day 1. Lost can be minimised for sure.

 

[joy_101]

Hello OCBC support, annual fees for OCBC titanium was charged on my card in Apr 2021. I called up customer care after that and I was told it cannot be waived off unless I complete my annual target spending.
So in Jan 2022, I completed my annual target spending and I waited for it to be automatically reversed in Jan's bill.
When it wasn't reversed, I sent a secured mail to OCBC requesting to refund my annual fees. But I just received a reply with the most hilarious thing "We regret to inform that we are unable to review waiver request for fees charged more than two months ago..."
Do you want to to spend $10,000 on my card within 2 months? Then why is there an annual spending target?

Thanks for looking into this and reverse my annual fees charged during 2021.

 

[a4973]

My understanding is spend target should be achieved for the period preceding the annual fee being charged.

 

[OCBC Bank]

Hello OCBC support, annual fees for OCBC titanium was charged on my card in Apr 2021. I called up customer care after that and I was told it cannot be waived off unless I complete my annual target spending.
So in Jan 2022, I completed my annual target spending and I waited for it to be automatically reversed in Jan's bill.
When it wasn't reversed, I sent a secured mail to OCBC requesting to refund my annual fees. But I just received a reply with the most hilarious thing "We regret to inform that we are unable to review waiver request for fees charged more than two months ago..."
Do you want to to spend $10,000 on my card within 2 months? Then why is there an annual spending target?

Thanks for looking into this and reverse my annual fees charged during 2021.

Hi joy_101

We are sorry to hear our team was not able to waive the charge. We may not always be able to accede to all waiver requests. But what we can do, is see if an appeal can be made for you

Drop us a PM with your contact number. Or send us a secured email from your OCBC Internet Banking, and share the 16-digit email reference number with us

^Sh

 

[BBCWatcher]

Drop us a PM with your contact number.

DON'T do that, Joy. You have no way of verifying that it's your bank's employee acting in an official capacity over a bank monitored channel this way.

OCBC: Stop putting the security of your customers (and thus your own bank) at risk.